Use and appropriateness in cheese choice, and an evaluation of attributes influencing appropriateness

Food Qualify and &fmno 5 (1994) 281-290 0 1994 Elsevier Science Limited Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 095rM293/94/$7.00

ELSEVIER

USEANDAPPROPRlATENESSINCHEESECHOICE,AND AN EVALUATION OFATTRIBUTESINFLUENCING APPROPRIATENESS Frances R. Jack, John R. Piggott & Alistair Paterson Centre for Food Quality, Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, University of Strathclyde, 131 Albion Street, Glasgow, UK, Cl 1SD. (Received 30 Sgbtaber 1993; accepted 28 [email protected] 1994)

factors. Studies on the appropriateness of alcoholic beverages (Schutz & Ortega, 1974) and rice and related products (Schutz et ah, 1975a) employed similar sets of uses, but only 50 and 100 subjects, respectively. Dairy products have also been studied (Bruhn & Schutz, 1986) for appropriateness in a reduced range of uses, using 51 consumers. Free choice profiling (Langron, 1983; Arnold & Williams, 1986) allows consumers to develop individual lists of uses, which can be used to rate appropriateness. Data are analysed using generalised Procrustes analysis (Gower, 1975) and principal component analysis (Piggott & Sharman, 1986), making it possible to discern major ‘use factors’ discriminating between samples. Using free choice profiling in a study of appropriateness in whiskies and other related beverages Piggott et al. (1990) noted that certain subjects were outliers, due to inadequate vocabularies. Use of nhe repertory grid method (RGM) (Kelly, 1955) may provide more complete lists of uses. The RGM involves the presentation of triplicate products, usually in the form of printed names and/or photographs on cards. Subjects are asked ‘when, where or how they would use product A but not B and C’. This is repeated for each sample in the triad, presenting random triads until no further uses are elicited. Repertory grid techniques have been applied previously in appropriateness studies of chocolate confectionery (McEwan & Thomson, 1988), alcoholic beverages (Striven et aL, 1986) and milks (Raats & Shepherd, 1991/1992). Subject numbers vary, but are generally less than those used in fixed vocabulary approaches. Striven et al. (1989) concluded that a group of about 20 consumers, with different views on the product, was adequate. Cheeses available in the UK cover a spectrum of styles, composition and provenance. However, Cheddar cheeses dominate retail sales. With increased emphasis on health and rapidly changing consumption patterns over recent years there has been an increase in demand for cheeses with reduced fat contents (Anderson et aL, 1993), decreased levels of saturated fatty-

ABSTRACT In recent years the variety of cheeses available on the UK market has increased dramatically, the range available widening to meet consumer demand. tionships between intended

Howevet; the relu-

use and apprqpriateness

of

cheeses and other factors determining choice have received little attention. Using the repertory grid method,approfniateness of a range of cheeses was examined.

This method-

ology also facilitated study of attributes, related to intended use, providing insights into characteristics in$uencing perceptions of appqtniateness. Eight signaficant Use Factors discriminated between cheeses in terms of a#rqtniateness

for daffemnt uses, with textural

and melting /n-operties being major okterminants of app-qpriateness. A range of Cheddur cheeses, the most poplar UK variety, also differed in app-qpriateness. Keywords: Repertory grid method; generalised Procrustes analysis; Cheddar cheese.

INTRODUCTION A major problem in product development is to identify why products differ in appropriateness. The role of attributes in influencing appropriateness has received little attention. The objective of this study was to identify important attributes in cheeses. Striven et al. (1989) defined context of use as ‘...time, manner, place or circumstance in which a food is consumed’. Early work carried out by Schutz and coworkers (Schutz, 1988)) to examine uses and appropriateness of foods, involved an approach similar to descriptive analysis (Stone et aL, 1974). Schutz et al: (19756) classified foods in experiments in which 200 untrained consumers rated product appropriateness in 48 uses. Products were grouped in terms of four major perceptual 281

282 F. R Jack,J R Piggvtt, A. Paterson acids (Lightfield et al, 1993), reduced sodium (Karahadian SCLindsay, 1984) and also novel products, such as wine-flavoured cheese (Tamime, 1984). In every case quality expectations of the consumer are high. Therefore it is important to have information on uses and ap propriateness and the role of cheese attributes in determining such perceptions. This study aims to provide an insight into such areas through the application of the repertory grid method.

MATERIALS

AND

METHODS

Cheese samples Subject knowledge of cheese varieties was determined in a preliminary study and nine of the more familiar were chosen, covering a range of types, appearances, textures and flavours. Seven Cheddar cheeses varying in maturity, composition and origin were added giving a tatal of 16 cheeses (Table 1).

Study of use and appropriateness Use and appropriateness of the cheese were studied using the repertory grid method. Twenty subjects, all regular cheese consumers, familiar with the 16 products, participated in the study. These subjects were all staff or students of Strathclyde University. Subjects had different views on cheese and could be categorised as either ‘speciality’ consumers, who regularly purchased a range of different cheeses, or ‘routine’ consumers, who generally only purchased Cheddar cheeses. Use descriptors were generated in individual interviews, in informal surroundings. Samples were presented in the form of photographs, showing the cheese, its packagTABLE 1. Cheese Samples Sample

Abbreviation

Brie Cheshire Cream Cheese Spread Edam Leicester Mozzarella Parmesan Processed Cheese Slice Blue Stilton

BRl CHS ccs EDA LEI MOZ PAR PCS ST1

Cheddar Cheese with Herbs English Farmhouse Cheddar Half Fat Cheddar Style Cheese Mild Scottish Cheddar MildVegetarian Cheddar Orkney Mature Island Cheddar Vintage Canadian Cheddar

CCH FAR MDS VEG ORK VIN

ing, and its name. Random triads were presented, sub jects being asked to define ‘uses, situations or circumstances in which they would consume one cheese in the triad but not the other two’. This process was repeated for each of the three cheeses. Triads were presented until no further uses were elicited. Appropriateness of each cheese in the uses generated was then scored, in duplicate, using line scales anchored by the terms ‘unsuitable’ and ‘suitable’. Data were analysed by means of generalised Procrustes analysis (GPA) (Procrustes-PC v2.1, OPP Inc., 3508 SG Utrecht, Netherlands), the mathematics and interpretation of which has been fully discussed (Arnold & Williams, 1986; Oreskovich et cd, 1991). GPA yields insights into the basic cognitive dimensions consumers use to distinguish between products and relative positions of products in respect to these dimensions (Hauser & Koppleman, 1979). It also allows the study of subjects on an individual basis, permitting identification of groups or clusters with similar percep tions. Appropriateness scores were analysed for all 16 cheeses and also for the Cheddars alone, producing two sets of factors, Use Factors and Cheddar Use Factors, respectively.

Study of cheese attributes important in appropriateness The repertory grid method was also applied to analyse the role of cheese attributes in determining percep tions of appropriateness. The major uses, generated in the previous part of the experiment, were written on cards and presented in the form of random triads. Subjects were asked to define ‘attributes of a cheese making it desirable/undesirable for use A, but not uses B and C’. Triads were presented until no further attributes were elicited. Attributes were scored, using line scales anchored by the terms ‘not important’ and ‘extremely important’. This was performed for both the uses generated or all 16 cheeses and those uses relating to Cheddars only. GPA was performed on the attribute scores generating two further sets of factors, Attribute Factors and Cheddar Attribute Factors.

RESULTS Uses and appropriateness

of cheeses

Between 12 and 22 uses were generated by individual subjects, with a mean of 17. Eight interpretable Use Factors were obtained (Fig. 1) all discriminating between samples, p < 0.05 and accounting for 28.3, 13.1, 11.4,4+6, 3.9, 3.4, 2.8 and 2.1% of the variance, respectively. Uses that correlated, > O-5 or< -0.5, with these factors were examined (Table 2).

Use and A#ro$wiateness in Cheese Choice cc

PCS

283

PCS !,:”

Cal CHSEDA LE!k

TAF FAR MDS

VEG

Factor 1

0.4

Factor

0.2 PCS

3

0.4

7

025

RDA

oRKPAR

cc

STI CHS

RVWR

LEl

CCS

CCH BR’

YDS MOZ HAF

-0.3 FIG.

Factor

5

0.3

-0.27 -0.2

STI Factor

1. Sample scores on Use Factors 1 to 8 after GPA of appropriateness ratings for 16 cheeses. Abbreviations are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 2. Uses Correlating with Factors 1 to 8 of the Sample Space after GPA for Appropriateness Ratings for 16 Cheeses, in decreasing order of significance 1 +ve:

picnic, on biscuits, on sandwiches, snack, dinner, supper, on bread, at parties, with pickle, packed lunch, in salads, in evening, with a drink, with coffee, eating on its own, with fruit, on toast, for a change, for children, cheese-board, on French bread, on stick savories, macaroni, with jam, cheese sauce, in scones, soufflis, luxury

1 -ve:

on pizza, with Italian food, spaghetti, for sprinkling, on soup, cooking, lasagne, on pasta, dinner time, baking, for spreading

2 +ve:

for dips, spreading on toast, luxury, stuffed mushrooms, with biscuits, with pasta, deep frying

2 -ve:

cheese sauce, on pasta, pizza, topping, with cauliflower, toasties, on soup, lasagne, on toast, with a drink, baked potato, souffles, fondue, in a salad, on its own, macaroni, microwave meals, with jam, with pickle, cheese pastry, savories, on a stick, on a burger, sandwich, making cheese straws, on Italian food

3 +ve:

for children, mornings, when camping, late at night, sandwiches, on a diet, for everyday use, picnics, for vegetarian visitors, when something light is desired, on a burger, in scones, on toast, spreading on biscuits, snack

3 -ve:

decoration, cooking, after dinner, in a cheese sauce, cheese-board, a treat, a present, special occasions, luxury, on bis cuits, making soup, macaroni, on paste

4 +ve:

on burgers. pizza, snack, eating on its own, for children, picnics

4 -ve:

vegetarian dishes, for a pate, for people allergic to animal products, sauce, for people on diets

5 +ve:

cheesecakes, for spreading, with jam, with fruit

5 -ve:

for making a vegetarian meal, for people allergic to animal products, eat on its own

6 +ve:

something that will keep, spaghetti, on bread, sandwiches

6 -ve:

on a diet, pizzas, lunch, inexpensive alternative, baked potatoes, on biscuits, for health reasons, in salad

7 +ve:

in pizza, with bread, fondues

7 -ve:

toppings, for people on diets

8 +ve:

fondue, eat on its own, storing unrefrigerated

8 -ve:

making soup

204

F. R Jack,J R Piggvtt, A. Paterson 3 2.5

BY

A

BA

B

A

B

-0.5

A

A

B

A

-1

A -1.5

*

B

A

B

I

-2

I

I

-1.5

-1

I

I

I

I

I

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Factor 1: for 16 cheeses 1.2

Ll

B

1 0.6 ,R g m

1 4

G &

B

0.6

0.4 A

0.2

AB

B

A

0 A

‘8

-0.2

?: %

-0.4

%e AA

B

B

B

-0.6 -0.6

_

B B

-1 -1.4 -1.2

-1

-0.6 -0.6 -0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.6

1

1.2

1.4

Factor 1: Cheddars only FIG. 2. Factors 1 and 2 of the assessor space after GPA of appropriateness

ratings for 16 cheeses, and for the Cheddar cheeses

only. A = ‘speciaIity’ consumers, B = ‘routine’ consumers.

Use Factor 1 showed a separation of the two Italian cheeses (-ve), Parmesan and Mozzarella, correlated with uses such as on j&a, with Italian food and spaetti. The remairring samples grouped on the positive end of this factor and were considered appropriate in a diverse range of uses. Brie, cream cheese spread and blue Stilton separated out on Use Factor 2 (+ve), again being only appropriate in a small number of uses, the most significant correlation being fw dips. A wide range of uses, generally related to cooking or heating, were correlated with the negative end of this factor. Use Factor 3 separated samples in terms of perceived ‘quality’ and strength of flavour. The negative end related to ‘high quality’ uses, e.g. after dinner, special occasion, treat and Zuxu?y. In contrast, the positive end related to occasions where a milder cheese might be desirable: for children, mmnings, lute at night, and when something light is desired. Other interesting correlations

were noted: when camping suggested that convenience may be important, art a diet, where fat content is of interest, and for vegetarian visitors, where a rennet-free product would be required. Use Factor 4 separated the processed cheese slices (+ve) from the vegetarian Cheddar. The processed cheese slice was appropriate for use on burger, as a snack, far and for children, while use in vegeta?ian disk was understandably the most important use of vegetarian Cheddar. Use Factor 5 also separated the vegetarian Cheddar (-ve) principally for muking a vegetarian meaL The cream cheese spread, appropriate for cheesecak and for @reading, appeared at the opposite end of this factor. The half fat Cheddar, located on the negative end of Use Factor 6, was perceived as most appropriate when on a diet. Use Factor 7 (+ve) correlated with use in pizza and separated Mozzarella, while Parmesan and half fat

picnics

Useand A@$niateness

in Cheese Choice

285

0.45 vegetarian vegetarian

unsuitable for pizza

soup

unsuitable cooking/heating for diets unsuitable for soup diets burgers

diverse uses

low quality/other important attributes cold

high quality spreadable

Italian food pizza

-0.25 -0.25

0.4

(I.,4

Factor 1

,

high quality

diverse uses soup cooking/heottng cold -0

L

I

Italian food

burgers

pizza

unsurtot ” “lo for diebc

unsuitable for pizza

unsuitable for soup

spreadable

vegetarian vegetorian

diets

low quality/other imaortant attributes

-0.3 -0.25

Factor 2

0.45

FIG. 3. Scores for major uses (Table 2) on Attribute Factors 1 to 3 after GPA of attribute ratings for 16 cheeses.

least appropriate in this use. Cheddar were Finally, Use Factor 8 separated the blue Stilton (-ve) appropriate fw making soup, from Edam, for fmdue, eating on its own and storkg unrejkigerated. The first two factors of the subject space (Fig. 2) showed no separation of ‘speciality’ from ‘routine’ consumers. On Factor 1 the group was relatively homogeneous, but on the second factor two of the ‘routine’ consumers were outliers. Both outliers had relatively short vocabularies, with 14 and 12 use descriptors, respectively. Similar problems have previously been observed (Jack et al, 1993), although use of the RGM should minimise these.

Attributes relating to appropriateness of cheese Between 10 and 18 attributes were generated, with a mean of 14. Three explainable Attribute Factors were

produced (Fig. 3) all discriminating between uses, < p O-05, and accounting for 12.7,g.l and 8.3% of the variance, respectively. Attributes that correlated, > O-5 or < -0.5, with these factors were examined (Table 3). Attribute Factor 1 showed a separation of uses involving cooking (-ve) from those not involving heat (+ve). Melts, appearance, no separation on cooking and does not burn were important attributes correlating with the negative end of this factor. Attribute Factor 2 separated vegetarian uses (+ve) from the remaining uses, correlating with attributes such as vegetarian and no rennet. There were also correlations with attributes animalpoductfi-ee, no animalfats and ma&)om milk other than cowls. A clear separation in terms of ‘quality’ was displayed on Attribute Factor 3. Attributes correlated with the ‘high quality’ uses (tve) included characteristics related to flavour, texture and appearance and other attributes, such as @venance, traditional and unusual On the

286

F. R Jack,J R Piggvtt, A. Paterson

TABLE 3. Attributes Correlating with Factors 1 to 3 of the ‘Use’ Space after GPA of Attribute Ratings for 16 Cheeses, in decreas ing order of significance 1 tve:

soft, creamy, mixable, smooth, full fat, can be spread, half fat, crumbly, texture, appearance, no rennet, variety of different cheeses, high quality, traditional, can be sliced, fat content, packaging

1 -ve:

melts, appearance, no separation on cooking, does not bum, browns, grateable, sticky, colour, low moisture content

2 tve:

vegetarian, sharp, animal product free, no rennet, not stringy, no animal fats, spreadable, unusual, packaging, soft, made from milk other than cow’s, texture, mixable, flavour

2 -ve:

spreadability, strong/sharp flavour, salt content, convenient, texture, mouthfeel, mild flavour, melts, appearance

3 tve:

melts, nippy, appearance, flavour, hard, provenance, blue, colour, does not sweat, can be cut into pieces, soft, traditional, mature, unusual

3 -ve:

texture, low fat content, flavour, vegetarian, stringiness, spreadable, bitterness, soft, no rennet, creamy, colour, stickiness, smooth

-0.1

-j

-0.2 -0.3 -0.4

MDS

-

-0.5 1

I

I

I

I

-0.8 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1

HAF

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

11

0.6

l

0.7

0.8

0.9

Factor 1 0.35

HAF

0.3 0.25 0.2 VlN

ORK

0.15 0.1 d $ s si.

0.05 0

FAR

-0.05

VRC

-0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 -0.3 -0.35

CCH YDS -0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Factor 3 FIG. 4. Sample scores on Cheddar Use Factors 1 to 4 after GPA of appropriateness

are shown in Table 1.

ratings for 7 Cheddar cheeses. Abbreviations

Use and A#m@iateness in Cheese Choice

287

TABLE 4. Uses Correlating with Factors 1 to 4 of the Sample Space after GPA of Appropriateness Ratings for 7 Cheddar Cheeses, in decreasing order of significance 1 +ve:

on a diet, when something light is desired, microwave meals, snack, on a burger, for vegetarian visitors, for health reasons, late at night, baking, on spaghetti, on pizzas, cheesecakes, mornings, with Italian food, for making a meal, when camping, macaroni, for making soup, supper, for people allergic to animal products, cooking, with fruit, for children, on toast, soufflis, sandwiches

1 -ve:

after dinner, with pickle, with biscuits, sandwiches, on its own, with wine, lunch, on toast, in salads, with jam, party, cheese-board, snack, on French bread, with coffee, in evening, picnics, on a stick, in a cheese sauce, a present, cooking, to decorate a meal, luxury, for a change, a treat, savory, toppings, cheesecakes, on pasta, storing unrefiigerated, on bread, at parties, on spaghetti, deep frying, macaroni, sprinkle on soup, making soup, fondue, toasties, something that will keep, savories

2 +ve:

with bread, for a change, for a vegetarian meal, for making soup, for people allergic to animal products, cheese sauce, in salads, an alternative to Cheddar if unavailable, sandwiches, in a toastie, picnics, eat on its own, on spaghetti, on sticks, on toast, savory toppings, on pasta, with Italian food, cheesecakes

2 -ve:

in salad, on sandwiches, lunch, with biscuits, as a dip, deep fried, cheese sauce, snack, inexpensive alternative, baked potatoes, with Italian food, pizzas, on a burger, for children, on stick, on a diet, toppings, cheesecake, picnics, toastie, making soup, on spaghetti, with fruit, on soup, with pickle, fondues, for spreading, dinner time, with jam

3 +ve:

with pasta, special occasions, with savories, for a dip, cheesecake, in a salad, cooking, snack, sprinkle on soup, to decorate a meal

3 -ve:

with a drink, on toast, in scones, on soup, in cooking, cheese sauce, with baked potato, snack, with dinner, on its own, lasagne, pizza, lunch, savories, with cauliflower, on sandwiches, in evening, with pasta, fondue, making a dip, for everyday use, topping, in salad, with jam, making cheese straws, deep frying, on cheese burgers, storing unrefrigerated, for children, with fruit, cheese pastry, something that will keep, on spaghetti, cheesecakes, on Italian food, on biscuits, in a toastie, making soup, for a pate, supper, picnic, macaroni, stuffed mushrooms, on bread

4 +ve:

on a diet, sprinkle on soup, sandwich, deep frying, in pizza, macaroni, cheese sauces, making soup, snack

4 -ve:

on crackers, on a burger, in salad, cheese sauce, toasted cheese, in pancakes, for pizza, snack, fondue, cooking, on bread, picnics, on pasta, parties, deep fried, lasagne, sandwiches, toasties, stuffed mushrooms, macaroni, in evening, for vegetarian visitors, dinner, for children, on a stick

-

‘lower quality’ (-ve) end flavour, texture and appearance were again important, as were lowfat content and vegetan’an.

Uses and appropriateness

of Cheddar

cheeses

Cheddar Use Factors (Fig. 4) discriminated between cheeses, p < O-05, and accounted for 37.4, 16.1, 13.7 and 6.9% of the variance, respectively. A total of 70 different uses correlated, > O-5 or < -0.5, with these factors (Table 4). Cheddar Use Factor 1 separated Cheddars suitable for ‘high quality’ uses, such as aftg- dinner, z&h urine and luxury, from those selected when attributes other than quality are important. The vegetarian Cheddar was separated out on Cheddar Use Factor 2 (+ve), being perceived as appropriate for a vegetarian meal and fmpeople allergic to animulpmducts. The negative end of this factor related to more routine uses, e.g. salad, 012 sandu@hes and lunch. The Cheddar cheese with herbs was separated out on Cheddar Use Factor 3 (tve) and the half fat Cheddar on Cheddar Use Factor 4 (tve). The first two factors of the subject space were also examined (Fig. 2). Factor 1 showed a significant, p < 0902, separation of the ‘speciality’ from the ‘routine’ Four

consumers. Greater variability was found among the ‘routine’ consumers, standard deviation 0.61 as opposed to 0.34 for the ‘speciality’ consumers. Distribution on Factor 2 was relatively homogeneous.

Attributes relating to appropriateness

of Cheddar cheese

Four Cheddar Attribute Factors were produced (Fig. 5), all discriminating between uses, p < O-05, and accounting for 16.6,14-4,11=8 and 9.2% of the variance, respectively. Attributes that correlated, > O-5 or < -0.5, with these factors were examined (Table 5). Cheddar Attribute Factor 1 separated ‘high quality’ uses (-ve) from ‘lower quality’ uses (tve). Flavour, texture and appearance were important for ‘high quality’ uses, as were other attributes, such as varkb of different cheeses, unusuall exclusiveness, provenan~ and mature. Cheddar Attribute Factor 2 related to vegetarian uses. Correlations being found with attributes such as vegetarian, no animal fats and no rennet in it. The third factor separated uses involving cooking/heating. Attributes such as stringy, soft and not soggy were of most importance here. Finally, Cheddar Attribute Factor 4 related to use on diets (-ve), correlating with fat content and low fat.

288

F. R Jack,J R Piggvtt, A. Patersm 0.5 dhwsr usas/ cooking

0.4 0.3 -

notnghrton

0.2 N s* 0 rx.

0.1 O-

spacbl

-0.1

-

-0.2

-

-0.3 -

occosbns diek

low quallty/othr imp.xtalt athtbubs

high qwlity

regetoffan

-0.4 -0.6

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Factor 1 0.4

ulsuitlJbls for dfofs

0.3 -

vrg9tarfan d

spulal

hbh quality

0.1

0

lxcaslons

low qwttty/othn lmporbnt attrtbutes

k

diets

-0.5

1

-0.6

I

I

I

I

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

I

I

I

I

I

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Factor 3 FIG. 5. Scores for major Cheddar uses (Table 4) on Attribute Factors 1 to 4 after GPA of attribute ratings for 7 Cheddar cheeses.

DISCUSSION Cheese is a versatile product, having an important role in the UK and other diets in a wide range of applications. Cheddar cheese is the most popular variety in the UK; the large number of uses correlated with the four Cheddar Use Factors indicated the diverse range of situations in which Cheddar is appropriate. Use Factors 1 and 2 (Fig. 1) separated cheeses used for specific purposes, from more versatile products. A lack of knowledge of functionality may influence perceptions of versatility, e.g. Cheddar cheese with herbs was perceived as unsuitable or cooking, Use Factor 2 (Fig. 1). Thus, although consumers may be interested in variations of standard products, additional information, e.g. recipe ideas, may be required if they are to be used to their full potential. Textural characteristics and be-

haviour on heating were major determinants of diverse functionality, related particularly to uses involving cooking/heating. ‘Quality’ was a major discriminatory factor, Use Factor 3 (Fig. 1). ‘High quality’ uses were contrasted with uses related to occasions where a mild cheese was desirable, and also reflected other concerns important in choice. In considering attributes related to perceived ‘quality’, Attribute Factor 3 (Fig. S), ‘high quality’ could not be explained simply by one or two attributes. Many characteristics were perceived as important. Interestingly, Iow fat content and vegetatian were attributes related to ‘low quality’. Such observations could be explained in two ways: either consumers were willing to accept a lower perceived ‘quality’ in exchange for other benefits, or simply that there was an expectation of ‘lower quality’ in such cheeses. ‘Quality’ was also important in the appropriateness of Cheddars, again relating to a wide range of attributes. Perceived

Use and A@o#wiateness in Cheese Choice

209

TABLE 5. Attributes Correlating with Factors 1 to 6 of the ‘Cheddar Use’ Space after GPA of Attribute Ratings for i’ Cheddar

Cheeses, in decreasing order of significance 1 +ve:

soft, bitterness, firm, melts easily, mixable, no rennet, grateable, vegetarian, can be stored, spreadability, mild flavour, packaging, stringiness, smooth, cooks evenly, low fat, no animal fats, can be sliced, rubbery, creamy, storable, chewy, fat

1 -ve:

appearance, variety of different cheeses, unusual, exclusiveness, strong/sharp flavour, blue, soft, spreadable, colour, full fat, can be cut into pieces, texture, hard, grateable, can be sliced, mature, melts, no rennet, provenance, condition

2 +ve:

melts, not crumbly, packaging, browns, hard, grateable, can be cut into pieces, sticky, low moisture content, homogenous when melted, cooks evenly, mild flavour, mixes well, bland, convenient, sharp, sliceable, smooth, colour, does not sweat, stringy, creamy, appearance

2 -ve:

can be grated, colour, originality, convenience, aroma, appearance, appeal, stringy, sliceable, firm, crumbliness, mild flavour, texture, vegetarian, no animal fats, no rennet, flavour, storable, low fat, high quality, creamy, mouthfeel, provenance, unusual, fat content, strong flavour

3 +ve:

appearance, low fat content, strong flavour, can be cubed, spreadable, calorie content, sliceable, stickiness, flavour, soft, firm, fat content, packaging, grateable

3 -ve:

can be sprinkled, stringy, soft, not soggy, creamy, texture, no rennet, firm, mild flavour, condition, low moisture content, smooth, does not sweat, strong flavour, browns evenly, melting, full fat, bland, grateable, rubbery, nippy, does not burn

4 +ve:

appearance, convenience, stickiness, can be cubed, no puddles of fat when melted, sharpness, texture, can be sliced, gooey, crumbly, browns evenly, creamy, melting, firm, stringy, can be spread, crisp on cooking, nippy, colour, no rennet, softness, mixable, traditional, strong flavour, mild flavour, blendable

4 -ve:

melting, holds in fat on melting, soft, fat content, can be sprinkled, low fat, salt content, price, mild flavour, convenience, light, firm, strong flavour, stringy, spreadable, texture, mouthfeel, chewy

content, not crumbly, calories, flavour, texture

maturity was a major determinant of suitability of Cheddars for ‘high quality’ uses, a correlation not ob served with other cheeses. Consumers appeared to have misconceptions about certain cheeses. In particular the vegetarian Cheddar was related to uses for people allergic to animal products and for people on diets, Use Factor 4 (Fig. 1). Separation of this cheese on a second factor, Use Factor 5 (Fig. 1) , was due to several subjects scoring it as unsuitable in most uses. Such subjects were probably not users of vegetarian Cheddar, and unfamiliar with both composition and functionality. Study of related attributes revealed that presence/absence of rennet was most important. However, correlation with animal product flee, no animal fats and maok from milh 0th than cow’s again highlighted consumers’ misconceptions in relation to the nature of vegetarian cheeses. The functionality of the half fat Cheddar was important, Use Factor 6 (Fig. 1). Correlation with use for health reasons revealed the perceived benefits of reduced fat content. Half fat Cheddar was also appropriate for use on @za.s, lunch, and bahed potatoes, suggesting interest in versatility. It is important that such consumer requirements are not overlooked during the development of reduced/low fat products. Results showed differences in perception between the ‘speciality’ and ‘routine’ consumers, in terms of use and appropriateness of Cheddar cheese (Fig. 2). Such considerations should be taken into account, particularly in market research. The nature of these differences could not be easily interpreted. However, superior product knowledge and more adventurous

tastes in the influence.

‘speciality’

group

may have a major

CONCLUSIONS Combining data on appropriateness with influential sample attributes could provide valuable information to cheese marketers and producers. With certain cheeses lack of product knowledge and misconceptions were revealed. Thus results obtained in this study suggested that provision of more information on functionality may lead to increased use. Although this study on occasion stated the obvious, this gave confidence in the methodology. The repertory grid method was found to be a potentially useful tool for interpreting major attributes influencing appropriateness in products that are not so well understood.

REFERENCES Anderson, D. L., Mistry, V. V., Brandsma, R. L. & Baldwin, K. A. (1993). Reduced fat Cheddar cheese from condensed milk. J. Dairy Sci., 76, 2832-44. Arnold, G. M. & Williams, A. A. (1986). The use of generalised Procrustes analysis. In Statistical Procedures in Food Research, ed. J. R. Piggott. Elsevier, London, pp. 233-55. Bruhn, C. M. & Schutz, H. G. (1986). Consumer percep tions of dairy and related-use foods. Food Technology, 40, 79-85.

Gower, J. C. (1975). General&d trika, 40,33-52.

Procrustes analysis. Psychome-

290

F. R Jack,JR Piggott, A. Paterson

Hauser, J. R. & Roppleman, F. S. (1979). Alternative percep tual mapping techniques: Relative accuracy and usefulness. J Ma&tingRes., 16,495-506. Jack, F. R., Piggott, J. R. & Paterson, A. (1993). Discrimination of texture and appearance in Cheddar cheese using consumer Free-Choice Profiling. J. Sensory Studies, 8, 167-76. Rarahadian, C. & Lindsay, R. C. (1984). FIavour and textural properties of reduced-sodium process American cheeses.J. Daily Sci., 67, 1892-904. Kelly, G. A. (1955). The Pycholoa of Personal Constvucts: a Theory of Personality. Norton, New York. Langron, S. P. (1983). The application of Procrustes statistics to sensory profiling. In Sensory Qua&y in Food-sand Beverap: Definition, Measumment and Control, ed. A. A. Williams & R. R. Atkin. Ellis Horwood, Chichester, pp. 89-95. Lightfield, K. D., Baer, R. J., Schingoethte, D. J., Easperson, R. M. & Brouk, M. J. (1993). Composition and flavour of milk and Cheddar cheese higher in unsaturated fatty acids. J. Daily Sk, 76, 1221-32. McEwan, J. A 8c Thomson, D. M. H. (1988). An investigation of the factors influencing consumer acceptance of chocolate confectionery using the repertory grid method. In Food Acqbtability, ed. D. M. H. Thomson. Elsevier, London, pp. 347-62. Oreskovich, D. C., Klein, B. P. & Sutherland, J. W. (1991). Procrustes analysis and its applications to free choice and other sensory profiling. In Sensory Science Themy and Applications in Foods, ed. H. T. Lawless & B. P. Klein. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 353-93. Piggott, J. R. SCSharman, R. (1986). Methods to aid interpre-

tation of multidimensional data. In StutisticaZProcedu~ in Food Research, ed. J. R. Piggott. Elsevier, London, pp. 181-232. Piggott, J. R., Sheen, M. R. & Apostolidou, S. G. (1990). Consumer perceptions of whiskies and other alcoholic beverages. Food @ali0 and Pnftice, t&177-85. Raats, M. M. & Shepherd, R. (1991/1992). An evaluation of the use and perceived appropriateness of milk using the repertory grid method and the ‘item by use’ appropriateness method. Food Qualio and Z+efmnce, 3,89-100. Schutz, H. G. (1988). Beyond preference: Appropriateness as a measure of contextual evaluation of food. In Food Acceptability, ed. D. M. H. Thomson. Elsevier, London, pp. 115-34. Schutz, H. G., Fridgen, J. D. & Damrell, J. D. (1975a). Consumer perceptions of rice and related pr0ducts.J. Food Sk, 40,277-81. Schutz, H. G. & Ortega, J. H. (1974). Consumer attitudes to wards wine. Am.J. Enology and Viticulture, 25,33-8. Schutz, H. G., Rucker, M. H. & Russell, G. F. (19756). Food and food-use classification systems. Food TechnoL, 29,50-&l. Striven, F. M., Gains, N., Green, S. R. & Thomson, D. M. H. (1989). A contextual evaluation of alcoholic beverages using the repertory grid method. Znt. J. Food Sci. TechnoL, 24,173-82. Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woolsey, A. & Singleton, R. C. (1974). Sensory evaluation by Quantitative Descriptive Analysis. Food TechnoL, 28,2434. Tamime, A. Y. (1984). Some aspects of the production of wine flavoured Cheddar cheese. Da@ Znds. Znt., 49,30-l.