Abstract
Product-related cues, such as brand or price, can influence consumers’ taste perception. Going beyond this observation, we examine the extent to which a stimulus-extrinsic factor, such as the format of the measurement tool on which consumers describe attributes of a taste sample, influences concurrent taste perception, and in turn, later taste recognition, overall product evaluation, and willingness to pay (WTP). The results of two experiments show that rating scale format (i) influences consumers’ concurrent impression of a taste sample, (ii) systematically biases later identification of the sample in a taste recognition test, and (iii) affects overall product evaluation and WTP. However, scale format (iv) does not influence ratings and downstream judgments when consumers are highly knowledgeable in the product domain. These findings demonstrate that the experience of taste is fleeting and not well represented in memory, and that like other subjective experiences, taste needs to be reconstructed based on accessible cues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We acknowledge that because crispness is related to acidity, it’s not obvious that it is necessarily positive.
References
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.
Bartoshuk, L. M. (2000). Comparing sensory experiences across individuals: recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste perception. Chemical Senses, 25(4), 447–460.
Bradburn, N. M., Rips, L. J., & Shevell, S. K. (1987). Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science, 236(4798), 157–161.
Braun, K. A. (1999). Postexperience advertising effects on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 319–334.
Cain, W. S. (1979). To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science, 2(4379), 467–470.
Engen, T., & Ross, B. M. (1973). Long-term memory of odors with and without verbal descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100(2), 221–227.
Eves, A. (1994). Sensory analysis—an alternative to wine tasting? International Journal of Wine Marketing, 6(2), 32–44.
Garber, L., Hyatt, E., & Starr, R. (2000). The effects of food color on perceived flavor. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 8(4), 59–73.
Gawel, R. (1997). The use of language by trained and untrained experienced wine tasters. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12(4), 267–284.
Hamilton, R. W., Ratner, R. K., & Thompson, D. V. (2011). Outpacing others: when consumers value products based on relative usage frequency. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 1079–1094.
Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2007). Taste perception: more than meets the tongue. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 490–498.
Hughson, A. L., & Boakes, R. A. (2001). Perceptual and cognitive aspects of wine tasting expertise. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 103–108.
Jaegar, S. (2005). Consumer evaluation of novel kiwifruit: willingness-to-pay. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(15), 2519–2526.
Köster, E. P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14(5–6), 359–373.
Krishna, A. (2010). Sensory marketing: research on the sensuality of consumers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lawless, H. T. (1984). Flavor description of white wine by “expert” and nonexpert wine consumers. Journal of Food Science, 49(1), 120–123.
Lee, L., Frederick, S., & Ariely, D. (2006). Try it, you’ll like it: the influence of expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences for beer. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1054–1058.
Lockshin, L. S., & Rhodus, W. S. (1993). The effect of price and oak flavor on perceived wine quality. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 5(2–3), 13–25.
Mantonakis, A., Rodero, P., Lesschaeve, I., & Hastie, R. (2009). Order in choice: effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1309–1312.
Melcher, J., & Schooler, J. W. (1996). The misremembrance of wines past: Verbal and perceptual expertise mediate verbal overshadowing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(2), 231–245.
Menon, G., Raghubir, P., & Schwarz, N. (1995). Behavioral frequency judgments: an accessibility-diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 212–228.
Parr, W. V., Heatherbell, D., & White, G. K. (2002). Demystifying wine expertise: olfactory threshold, perceptual skill and semantic memory in expert and novice wine judges. Chemical Senses, 27(8), 747–755.
Plassmann, H., O’Doherty, J., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions modulate the neural representation of experienced pleasantness. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(3), 1050–1054.
Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96(2), 341–357.
Robinson, M. D., & Clore, J. L. (2002). Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-report: evidence for two judgment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 198–215.
Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105.
Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25, 638–656.
Schwarz, N., & Scheuring, B. (1988). Judgments of relationship satisfaction: inter- and intraindividual comparison strategies as a function of questionnaire structure. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 485–496.
Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (1994). Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Schwarz, N., Hippler, H. J., Deutsch, B., & Strack, F. (1985). Response scales: effects of category range on reported behavior and subsequent judgments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 388–395.
Schwarz, N., Strack, F., Müller, G., & Chassein, B. (1988). The range of response alternatives may determine the meaning of the question: further evidence on informative functions of response alternatives. Social Cognition, 6, 107–117.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Bohner, G., Harlacher, U., & Kellenbenz, M. (1991a). Response scales as frames of reference: the impact of frequency range on diagnostic judgment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 37–50.
Schwarz, N., Knäuper, B., Hippler, H., Noelle-Neumann, E., & Clark, L. (1991b). Rating scales: numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55(4), 570–582.
Schwarz, N., Kahneman, D., & Xu, J. (2009). Global and episodic reports of hedonic experience. In R. Belli, D. Alwin, & F. Stafford (Eds.), Using calendar and diary methods in life events research (pp. 157–174). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Siegrist, M., & Cousin, M. E. (2009). Expectations influence sensory experience in a wine tasting. Appetite, 52(3), 762–765.
Solomon, G. E. (1990). Psychology of novice and expert wine talk. American Journal of Psychology, 103(4), 495–517.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mantonakis, A., Schwarz, N., Wudarzewski, A. et al. Malleability of taste perception: biasing effects of rating scale format on taste recognition, product evaluation, and willingness to pay. Mark Lett 28, 293–303 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-016-9416-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-016-9416-z