Journal of the Korean Society of Food Culture (한국식생활문화학회지)

Korean Society of Food Culture (한국식생활문화학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Contextual Appropriateness of Commercial Beverages According to Product Information Exposure

정보 노출에 따른 시판 음료의 상황별 적합성

  • Kim, Hyun-Kyung (Department of Food Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Jeon, Seon-Young (Department of Food Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Kim, Kwang-Ok (Department of Food Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University)
  • 김현경 (이화여자대학교 공과대학 식품공학과) ;
  • 전선영 (이화여자대학교 공과대학 식품공학과) ;
  • 김광옥 (이화여자대학교 공과대학 식품공학과)
  • Received : 2013.08.14
  • Accepted : 2013.10.02
  • Published : 2013.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Beverages can vary in their appropriateness depending on the context of their different uses; therefore, an intention to consume a beverage is likely dependent on the context of its use. This study associated the consumer acceptability of commercial beverage products examined in a previous study (Kim and others, 2013) with its appropriateness under different use contexts. Consumers (n=360) were divided into two conditions: blind and brand. Consumers rated appropriateness for 13 use contexts for each beverage product. The results indicated that the contextual appropriateness were significantly different among the beverage samples and seemed to be positively influenced by the acceptability of beverages. The beverages with higher liking scores were more appropriate in a greater number of contexts, including "when tired", "refreshing", and "rest". However, there were inappropriate contexts (e.g., "while weight watching", "after exercise", "with a meal", and "health care") regardless of degree of acceptability. In the brand condition, some differences in contextual appropriateness were observed when comparing results from the blind condition (e.g., "with a meal", "health care").

Keywords

References

  1. Allison RI, Uhl KP. 1964. Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception. J. Marketing Res.1(3): 36-39 https://doi.org/10.2307/3150054
  2. Bower JA, Saadat MA, Whitten C. 2003. Effect of liking, information and consumer characteristics on purchase intention and willingness to pay more for a fat spread with a proven health benefit. Food Qual Prefer. 14(1):65-74 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00019-8
  3. Cardello AV, Schutz HG. 1996. Food appropriateness measures as an adjunct to consumer preference/acceptability evaluation. Food Qual Prefer. 7(3-4): 239-249 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(96)00012-2
  4. Cho HY, Chung SJ, Kim HS, Kim KO. 2005. Effect of sensory characteristics and non-sensory factors on consumer liking of various canned tea products. J. Food Sci. 70(8):S532-S538 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb11530.x
  5. Freeman RPJ, Booth DA. 2010. Users of 'diet' drinks who think that sweetness is calories. Appetite. 55(1):152-155 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.04.003
  6. Guinard JX, Souchard A, Picot M, Rogeaux M, Sieffermann JM. 1998. Sensory determinant of the thirst-quenching character of beer. Appetite. 31(1):101-115 https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1998.0165
  7. Guinard JX, Uotani B, Schlich P. 2001. Internal and external mapping of preference for commercial lager beers: Comparison of hedonic ratings by consumers blind versus with knowledge of brand and price. Food Qual Prefer. 12(4):243-255 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00011-8
  8. Helgesen H, Solheim R, Naes T. 1997. Consumer preference mapping of dry fermented lamb sausages for consumer testing. Food Qual Prefer. 8(2):97-109 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(96)00037-7
  9. Her ES, Lee KH, Bea EY, Lyu ES. 2008. Interrelations among beverage intake, food behavior and personality in adolescents. Korean J. Community Nutr. 13(2):189-198
  10. Kihlberg I, Johansson L, Langsrud O, Risvik E. 2005. Effects of information on liking of bread. Food Qual Prefer. 16(1):25-35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.12.005
  11. Kim EM. 2011. Formulation and quality characteristics of noni beverages mixed with red ginseng, rubus coreanus and pomegranate extracts. Korea J. Culinary Res. 17(1):259-269
  12. Kim HK, Jeon SY, Kim KO. 2013. The effects of consumer demographics and brand information on consumer acceptability of commercial beverage products. Food Sci Biotechnol. in press
  13. King SC, Weber AJ, Meiselman HL, Lv N. 2004. The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food Qual Prefer. 15(7-8): 645-653 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.04.010
  14. Labbe D, Gilbert F, Antille N, Martin N. 2009. Sensory determinants of refreshing. Food Qual Prefer. 20(2):100-109 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.09.001
  15. Lahteenmaki L, Tuorila H. 1997. Item-by-use appropriateness of drinks varying in sweetener and fat content. Food Qual Prefer. 8(2):85-90 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(96)00025-0
  16. Lange C, Martin C, Chabanet C, Combris P, Issanchou S. 2002. Impact of the information provided to consumers on their willingness to pay for Champagne: Comparison with hedonic scores. Food Qual Prefer. 13(7-8):597-608 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00059-9
  17. Lee SM, Lee HS, Kim KH, Kim KO. 2009. Sensory characteristics and consumer acceptability of decaffeinated green teas. J. Food Sci. 74(3):S135-S141 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01100.x
  18. Luckow T, Delahunty CM. 2004. Which juice is 'healthier'? A consumer study of probiotic non-dairy juice drinks. Food Qual Prefer. 15(7-8):751-759 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.12.007
  19. McEwan JA, Colwill JS. 1996. The sensory assessment of the thirst-quenching characteristics of drinks. Food Qual Prefer. 7(2):101-111 https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(95)00042-9
  20. Mejlholm O, Martens M. 2006. Beer identity in Denmark. Food Qual Prefer. 17(2):108-115 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.10.001
  21. Nevid JS. 1981. Effects of brand labeling on ratings of product quality. Percept Motor Skill. 53(2):407-410 https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1981.53.2.407
  22. Noussair C, Robin S, Ruffieux B. 2004. Revealing consumers' willingness-to-pay: A comparison of the BDM mechanism and the Vickrey auction. J. Econ Psychol. 25(6):725-741 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2003.06.004
  23. Raats MM, Shepherd R. 1992. An evaluation of the use and perceived appropriateness of milk using the repertory grid method and the 'item by use' appropriateness method. Food Qual Prefer. 3(2):89-100
  24. Resano H, Sanjuan AI, Albisu LM. 2009. Consumers' acceptability and actual choice. An exploratory research on cured ham in Spain. Food Qual Prefer. 20(5):391-398 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.03.002
  25. Schutz HG. 1994. Appropriateness as measure of the cognitivecontextual aspects of food acceptance. In MacFie, H. J. H., & Thomson, D. M. H. (Eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences. pp 25-50. Glassgow: Blackie Academic and Professtional
  26. Scriven FM, Gains N, Green SR, Thomson DMH. 1989. A contextual evaluation of alcoholic beverages using the repertory grid method. International J. Food Sci Technol. 24(2):173-182
  27. Sheen MR, Drayton JL. 1988. Influence of brand label on sensory perception. Thomson, D. M. H. (Ed.Food acceptability)
  28. Shin SH, Shim JY, Yoon SH, Choi JH, Lee YS. 2010. The consumption pattern for named beverages - Research among University students in Seoul. Korea J. Food Culture. 25(6):820-831
  29. Shin SY, Chung LN. 2007. The preference and frequency of beverages related to health factor in University students. Korea J. Food Culture. 22(4):420-433
  30. Solheim R, Lawless HT. 1996. Consumer purchase probability affected by attitude towards low-fat foods: liking, private body consciousness and information on fat and price. Food Qual Prefer. 7(2):137-143 https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(95)00045-3
  31. Stampanoni CR. 1993. Influence of acid and sugar content on sweetness, sourness and the flavor profile of beverages and sherbets. Food Qual Prefer. 4(3):169-176 https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(93)90159-4
  32. Tepper BJ, Trail AC. 1998. Taste or health: a study on consumer acceptance of corn chips. Food Qual Prefer. 9(4):267-272 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00006-8
  33. Vickers ZM. 1993. Incorporating tasting into a conjoint analysis of taste, health claim, price and brand for purchasing strawberry yogurt. J. Sens Stud. 8(4):341-352 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1993.tb00224.x
  34. Westcombe A, Wardle J. 1997. Influence of relative fat content information on responses to three foods. Appetite. 28(1):49-6 https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1996.0066

Cited by

  1. Effects of Viewing Motivations on Viewing Preferences and Viewing Intentions of Television Food Programs vol.29, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7318/KJFC/2014.29.3.259