Marketing Letters

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 293–303 | Cite as

Malleability of taste perception: biasing effects of rating scale format on taste recognition, product evaluation, and willingness to pay

  • Antonia Mantonakis
  • Norbert Schwarz
  • Amanda Wudarzewski
  • Carolyn Yoon


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.


Taste perception Rating scales Sensory testing Reconstructive memory Consumer behavior 


  1. Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartoshuk, L. M. (2000). Comparing sensory experiences across individuals: recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste perception. Chemical Senses, 25(4), 447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, K. A. (1999). Postexperience advertising effects on consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(4), 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cain, W. S. (1979). To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science, 2(4379), 467–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engen, T., & Ross, B. M. (1973). Long-term memory of odors with and without verbal descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100(2), 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eves, A. (1994). Sensory analysis—an alternative to wine tasting? International Journal of Wine Marketing, 6(2), 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gawel, R. (1997). The use of language by trained and untrained experienced wine tasters. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12(4), 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoegg, J., & Alba, J. W. (2007). Taste perception: more than meets the tongue. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hughson, A. L., & Boakes, R. A. (2001). Perceptual and cognitive aspects of wine tasting expertise. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaegar, S. (2005). Consumer evaluation of novel kiwifruit: willingness-to-pay. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85(15), 2519–2526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Köster, E. P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14(5–6), 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krishna, A. (2010). Sensory marketing: research on the sensuality of consumers. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Lawless, H. T. (1984). Flavor description of white wine by “expert” and nonexpert wine consumers. Journal of Food Science, 49(1), 120–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mantonakis, A., Rodero, P., Lesschaeve, I., & Hastie, R. (2009). Order in choice: effects of serial position on preferences. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1309–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Menon, G., Raghubir, P., & Schwarz, N. (1995). Behavioral frequency judgments: an accessibility-diagnosticity framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 212–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96(2), 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25, 638–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwarz, N., & Sudman, S. (1994). Autobiographical memory and the validity of retrospective reports. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Siegrist, M., & Cousin, M. E. (2009). Expectations influence sensory experience in a wine tasting. Appetite, 52(3), 762–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Solomon, G. E. (1990). Psychology of novice and expert wine talk. American Journal of Psychology, 103(4), 495–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonia Mantonakis
    • 1
  • Norbert Schwarz
    • 2
  • Amanda Wudarzewski
    • 3
  • Carolyn Yoon
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Marketing, International Business, and Strategy, Goodman School of BusinessBrock UniversitySt CatharinesCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  4. 4.Stephen M. Ross School of BusinessUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations