| Literature DB >> 31684206 |
Katarzyna Włodarska1, Katarzyna Pawlak-Lemańska2, Tomasz Górecki3, Ewa Sikorska4.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of intrinsic product characteristics and extrinsic packaging-related factors on the food quality perception. Sensory and visual attention methods were used to study how consumers perceive the quality of commercial apple juices from four product categories: clear juices from concentrate, cloudy juices from concentrate, pasteurized cloudy juices not from concentrate, and fresh juices. Laboratory tests included the assessment of sensory liking in blind and informed conditions and expected liking based on packages only. The results showed that brand and package information have a large impact on consumers' sensory perceptions and generate high sensory expectations. An innovative visual attention tracking technique was used in online experiments to identify packages and label areas on individual packages, which attracted consumer attention. During an online shelf test, consumers mostly focused on not from concentrate juices from local producers, which were perceived as more natural, healthy, and expensive than juices reconstituted from concentrate. When individual labels were analyzed, consumers predominantly focused on nutritional data, brand name, and information about the type of product. The present results confirm a large impact of information and visual stimuli related to packaging on product perception.Entities:
Keywords: apple juice; consumer perception; internal preference mapping; label; packaging; visual attention
Year: 2019 PMID: 31684206 PMCID: PMC6915395 DOI: 10.3390/foods8110545
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Description of the apple juices used in the study.
| Juice 1 | Product Category 2 | Package | Market Segment |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | FC, clear | 1.00 L box | Standard |
| B | FC, clear | 1.00 L light plastic bottle | Standard |
| C | FC, cloudy | 1.00 L box | Standard |
| D | FC, cloudy | 0.70 L light glass bottle | Standard |
| E | NFC, cloudy, pasteurized | 0.25 L dark glass bottle | Premium |
| F | NFC, cloudy, pasteurized | 0.25 L light glass bottle | Premium |
| G | NFC, freshly squeezed | 0.25 L light glass bottle | Premium |
| H | NFC, freshly squeezed | 0.25 L light glass bottle | Premium |
1 The set of A–H juices was the same as studied previously [28]. 2 FC—from concentrate, NFC—not from concentrate.
Mean consumer liking scores1 of apple juices evaluated in blind, expected, and informed conditions.
| Juice | Evaluation Conditions 1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Blind 2 | Expected | Informed | |
| A | 4.5 c,d,C | 5.8 c,A | 5.1 e,B |
| B | 4.9 b,c,C | 6.1 b,c,A | 5.4 d,eB |
| C | 5.8 a,A | 6.4 a,b,c,A | 6.3 b,c,A |
| D | 5.6 a,bB | 6.6 a,b,A | 6.1 b,c,d,A,B |
| E | 4.1 d,C | 5.8 c,A | 5.3 d,e,B |
| F | 4.2 c,d,C | 6.4 b,c,A | 5.7 c,d,e,B |
| G | 6.2 a,B | 6.7 a,b,A,B | 6.9 a,b,A |
| H | 5.7 a,B | 7.1 a,A | 7.3 a,A |
1 Evaluated on a nine-point hedonic scale. 2 The consumer ratings in blind conditions were available from our previous study [28]. Different lowercase superscripts (a–e) within a column indicate significant differences according to the t-test (p < 0.05). Different capital superscripts (A–C) within a row indicate significant differences according to the t-test (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Internal preference maps for different testing conditions: (a) blind, (b) expected, (c) informed. A,B—clear FC juices; C,D—cloudy FC juices; E,F—cloudy NFC juices; G,H—fresh juices. Red dots correspond to the individual consumers. PC1 and PC2 correspond to the first and second principal component, respectively.
Figure 2Correspondence analysis of check-all-that-apply responses: (a) laboratory consumer study, (b) online consumer study. A,B—clear FC juices; C,D—cloudy FC juices; E,F—cloudy NFC juices; G,H—fresh juices.
Average percentage of consumers who focused their attention on the label’s specified reference area defined individually for each type of label, and the average time of attention for apple juices assessed using a visual attention tracking tool.
| Juice | Average Percentage of Consumers (%) | Average Time of Attention (s) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand | Nutritional Label | Type of Product | Brand | Nutritional Label | Type of Product | |
| A | 87 | 94 | 74 | 0.3 | 2.2 | 1.2 |
| B | 87 | 100 | 100 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| C | 85 | 97 | 70 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 0.7 |
| D | 76 | 84 | 84 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.0 |
| E | 93 | 83 | 91 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.7 |
| F | 95 | 97 | 86 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 0.7 |
| G | 99 | 100 | 100 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1.0 |
| H | 95 | 95 | 87 | 0.4 | 1.4 | 0.7 |
| Mean | 89.6 | 93.8 | 86.5 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 0.8 |