Plant-Based Alternatives Need Not Be Inferior: Findings from a Sensory and Consumer Research Case Study with Cream Cheese
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation for the Research
1.2. Research Objectives, Expected Findings and Empirical Overview
- Objective 1. To measure liking and provide a consumer-centric and extensive characterisation of PBCA through an empirical strategy that compared these to dairy cheese.
- Objective 2. To determine sensory and non-sensory drivers of liking.
- Objective 3. To determine sensory drivers of non-sensory product perceptions.
- Objective 4. To explore determine if consumer groups with different liking/disliking patterns for PBCA existed (i.e., consumer segmentation).
1.2.1. Objective 1
1.2.2. Objective 2
1.2.3. Objective 3
1.2.4. Objective 4
1.2.5. Case Study and Empirical Approach
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Samples and Sample Presentation
2.2.1. Samples
2.2.2. Sample Preparation and Presentation
2.3. Responses by Consumers to Tasted Samples
2.4. Data Collection
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Liking (Objective 1)
3.2. Product Characterisation (Objective 1)
3.2.1. Sensory
3.2.2. Emotional
3.2.3. Conceptual
3.2.4. Situational
3.3. Sensory and Non-Sensory Drivers of Liking (Objective 2)
3.3.1. Sensory Drivers of Liking
3.3.2. Emotional Drivers of Liking
3.3.3. Conceptual Drivers of Liking
3.3.4. Situational Drivers of Liking
3.4. Sensory Drivers of Non-Sensory Product Characteristics (Objective 3)
3.4.1. Appearance, Taste, and Flavour
3.4.2. Texture and Mouthfeel
3.5. Consumer Segmentation Based on Liking (Objective 4)
3.5.1. Product Characterisation by Cluster
3.5.2. Drivers of Liking by Cluster
4. Discussion
4.1. Liking for PB Cream Cheese Alternatives and Consumer Segmentation
4.2. Suggestions for How to Improve PB Cream Cheese Alternatives
4.2.1. Texture and Mouthfeel
4.2.2. Appearance, Taste, and Flavour
4.3. Non-Sensory Product Characterisation
4.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- McClements, D.J.; Grossmann, L. Next-generation plant-based foods: Challenges and opportunities. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 15, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Resources Institute. Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Available online: https://www.wri.org/research/creating-sustainable-food-future (accessed on 18 November 2023).
- Schösler, H.; Boer, J.d.; Boersema, J.J. Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite 2012, 58, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardello, A.V.; Llobell, F.; Giacalone, D.; Chheang, S.L.; Jaeger, S.R. Consumer preference segments for plant-based foods: The role of product category. Foods 2022, 11, 3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Onwezen, M.C.; Reinders, M.J.; Verain, M.C.D.; Snoek, H.M. The development of a single-item Food Choice Questionnaire. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 71, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veganuary. Veganuary 2021: The Official Survey Results Are in! Available online: https://veganuary.com/veganuary-2021-survey-results (accessed on 23 November 2023).
- Fox, P.F.; McSweeney, P.L.H. Cheese: An overview. In Cheese, 4th ed.; McSweeney, P.L.H., Fox, P.F., Cotter, P.D., Everett, D.W., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 5–21. [Google Scholar]
- McSweeney, P.L.H.; Ottogalli, G.; Fox, P.F. Diversity of cheese varieties: An overview. In Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology; Fox, P.F., McSweeney, P.L.H., Cogan, T.M., Guinee, T.P., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Grossmann, L.; McClements, D.J. The science of plant-based foods: Approaches to create nutritious and sustainable plant-based cheese analogs. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 118, 207–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falkeisen, A.; Gorman, M.; Knowles, S.; Barker, S.; Moss, R.; McSweeney, M.B. Consumer perception and emotional responses to plant-based cheeses. Food Res. Int. 2022, 158, 111513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grasso, N.; Roos, Y.H.; Crowley, S.V.; Arendt, E.K.; O’Mahony, J.A. Composition and physicochemical properties of commercial plant-based block-style products as alternatives to cheese. Future Foods 2021, 4, 100048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McClements, D.J. Development of next-generation nutritionally fortified plant-based milk substitutes: Structural design principles. Foods 2020, 9, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Short, E.C.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. Plant-based cheeses: A systematic review of sensory evaluation studies and strategies to increase consumer acceptance. Foods 2021, 10, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appiani, M.; Cattaneo, C.; Laureati, M. Sensory properties and consumer acceptance of plant-based meat, dairy, fish and eggs analogs: A systematic review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1268068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chavan, R.; Jana, A. Cheese substitutes: An alternative to natural cheese—A review. Int. J. Food Sci, Techol. Nutr. 2007, 2, 25–39. [Google Scholar]
- Jeske, S.; Zannini, E.; Arendt, E.K. Past, present and future: The strength of plant-based dairy substitutes based on gluten-free raw materials. Food Res. Int. 2018, 110, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Waehrens, S.S.; Faber, I.; Gunn, L.; Buldo, P.; Bom Frøst, M.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. Consumers’ sensory-based cognitions of currently available and ideal plant-based food alternatives: A survey in Western, Central and Northern Europe. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 108, 104875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amyoony, J.; Moss, R.; Dabas, T.; Gorman, M.; Ritchie, C.; LeBlanc, J.; McSweeney, M.B. An investigation into consumer perception of the aftertaste of plant-based dairy alternatives using a word association task. Appl. Food Res. 2023, 3, 100320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drake, S.L.; Gerard, P.D.; Drake, M.A. Consumer preferences for mild cheddar cheese flavors. J. Food Sci. 2008, 73, S449–S455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drake, S.l.; Lopetcharat, K.; Clark, S.; Kwak, H.s.; Lee, S.y.; Drake, M.a. Mapping differences in consumer perception of sharp cheddar cheese in the United States. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74, S276–S285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foguel, A.; Neves Rodrigues Ract, J.; Claro da Silva, R. Sensory characterization of commercial cream cheese by the consumer using check-all-that-apply questions. J. Sensory Stud. 2021, 36, e12658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murray, J.M.; Delahunty, C.M. Consumer preference for Irish farmhouse and factory cheeses. Irish J. Agric. Food Res. 2000, 39, 433–449. [Google Scholar]
- Arise, A.K.; Opaleke, D.O.; Salami, K.O.; Awolola, G.V.; Akinboro, D.F. Physico-chemical and sensory properties of a cheese-like product from the blend of soymilk and almond milk. Agrosearch 2020, 19, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oyeyinka, A.T.; Odukoya, J.O.; Adebayo, Y.S. Nutritional composition and consumer acceptability of cheese analog from soy and cashew nut milk. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2019, 43, e14285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pointke, M.; Ohlau, M.; Risius, A.; Pawelzik, E. Plant-based only: Investigating consumers’ sensory perception, motivation, and knowledge of different plant-based alternative products on the market. Foods 2022, 11, 2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsado, C.; Lopez-Aldana, L.; Chen, L.; Wismer, W. Consumer perception and sensory drivers of liking of fortified oat milks. Foods 2023, 12, 4097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardello, A.V.; Llobell, F.; Giacalone, D.; Roigard, C.M.; Jaeger, S.R. Plant-based alternatives vs dairy milk: Consumer segments and their sensory, emotional, cognitive and situational use responses to tasted products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 100, 104599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desmet, P.M.A.; Schifferstein, H.N.J. Sources of positive and negative emotions in food experience. Appetite 2008, 50, 290–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thomson, D.M. Conceptual profiling. In Emotion Measurement, 1st ed.; Meiselman, H.L., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 239–272. [Google Scholar]
- Grossmann, L.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.; McClements, D.J. Standardized methods for testing the quality attributes of plant-based foods: Milk and cream alternatives. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 2206–2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sandine, W.E.; Elliker, P.R. Microbially induced flavors and fermented foods. Flavor in fermented dairy products. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1970, 18, 557–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meals, S.E.; Schiano, A.N.; Drake, M.A. Drivers of liking for Cheddar cheese shreds. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 2167–2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ojeda, M.; Etaio, I.; Valentin, D.; Dacremont, C.; Zannoni, M.; Tupasela, T.; Lilleberg, L.; Pérez-Elortondo, F.J. Effect of consumers’ origin on perceived sensory quality, liking and liking drivers: A cross-cultural study on European cheeses. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shepard, L.; Miracle, R.E.; Leksrisompong, P.; Drake, M.A. Relating sensory and chemical properties of sour cream to consumer acceptance. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 5435–5454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ciobanu, M.-M.; Ciobotaru, M.-C.; Manoliu, D.-R.; Boișteanu, P.-C. The role of sensory evaluation in food quality control, food research and development: A case of cream cheese study. Sci. Publ. Iași Univ. Life Sci. (IULS) 2021, 64, 271–276. [Google Scholar]
- Sandhya, P.S.; Lakshmy Priya, S. Formulation of beetroot cream cheese spread. Int. J. Inf. Res. Rev. 2017, 4, 3710–3712. [Google Scholar]
- Meiselman, H.L. Emotion Measurement, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Prescott, J. Some considerations in the measurement of emotions in sensory and consumer research. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 62, 360–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinelli, S.; Dinnella, C.; Ares, G.; Abbà, S.; Zoboli, G.; Monteleone, E. Global Profile: Going beyond liking to better understand product experience. Food Res. Int. 2019, 121, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thomson, D.M.; Coates, T. Concept profiling–navigating beyond liking. In Emotion Measurement, 2nd ed.; Meiselman, H.L., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 381–438. [Google Scholar]
- Cardello, A.V.; Jaeger, S.R. Measurement of consumer product emotions using questionnaires. In Emotion Measurement, 1st ed.; Meiselman, H.L., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2016; pp. 165–200. [Google Scholar]
- Cardello, A.V.; Schutz, H.G. Food appropriateness measures as an adjunct to consumer preference/acceptability evaluation. Food Qual. Prefer. 1996, 7, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iacobucci, D.; Churchill, G. Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 12th ed.; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Spinelli, S.; Masi, C.; Zoboli, G.P.; Prescott, J.; Monteleone, E. Emotional responses to branded and unbranded foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 42, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Spinelli, S.; Ares, G.; Monteleone, E. Linking product-elicited emotional associations and sensory perceptions through a circumplex model based on valence and arousal: Five consumer studies. Food Res. Int. 2018, 109, 626–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Giacalone, D. Barriers to consumption of plant-based beverages: A comparison of product users and non-users on emotional, conceptual, situational, conative and psychographic variables. Food Res. Int. 2021, 144, 110363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardello, A.V.; Llobell, F.; Jin, D.; Ryan, G.S.; Jaeger, S.R. Sensory drivers of liking, emotions, conceptual and sustainability concepts in plant-based and dairy yoghurts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 113, 105077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Næs, T.; Varela, P.; Berget, I. Individual Differences in Sensory and Consumer Science: Experimentation, Analysis and Interpretation, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Racette, C.M.; Drake, M.A. Consumer perception of natural hot-pepper cheeses. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 2166–2179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hansen, R.; Gebhardt, B.; Hess, S. Hype or hope? What consumer motives tell us about the prospects for plant and animal-based dairy products in six European countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 109, 104910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Modlinska, K.; Adamczyk, D.; Maison, D.; Pisula, W. Gender differences in attitudes to vegans/vegetarians and their food preferences, and their implications for promoting sustainable dietary patterns–a systematic review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perez-Cueto, F.J. Sustainability, health and consumer insights for plant-based food innovation. Int. J. Food Des. 2020, 5, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marx, J.A. “The Days Had Come of Curds and Cream” The origins and development of cream cheese in America, 1870–1880. Food Cult. Soc. 2012, 15, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, S.-S.; Lee, S.-J.; Ganesan, P.; Kwak, H.-S. Comparative study of flavor, texture, and sensory in cream cheese and cholesterol-removed cream cheese. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 21, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guinee, T.P.; Hickey, M. Cream cheese and related products. In Dairy Fats and Related Products; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: West Sussex, UK, 2009; pp. 195–256. [Google Scholar]
- Wendin, K.; Langton, M.; Caous, L.; Hall, G. Dynamic analyses of sensory and microstructural properties of cream cheese. Food Chem. 2000, 71, 363–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philadelphia. Our Products. Available online: https://www.creamcheese.com/products (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Soyinfo Center. History of Cheese, Cream Cheese and Sour Cream Alternatives (with or without Soy) (1896–2013). Available online: https://www.soyinfocenter.com/books/169 (accessed on 18 November 2023).
- Good Food Institute. 2022 State of the Industry Report—Plant-Based Meat, Seafood, Eggs and Dairy. Available online: https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/2022-Plant-Based-State-of-the-Industry-Report.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2023).
- GlobeNewswire. Dairy-Free Cream Cheese Market Continues to Flourish with a Market Value of USD 300.40 Million by 2032 as Health-Conscious Consumers Embrace Plant-Based Alternatives. Available online: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2023/08/22/2729705/0/en/Dairy-Free-Cream-Cheese-Market-Continues-to-Flourish-with-a-market-value-of-USD-300-40-million-by-2032-as-Health-Conscious-Consumers-Embrace-Plant-Based-Alternatives.html (accessed on 6 December 2023).
- Stats NZ. Cheese Export Values Stretch to New Highs. Available online: https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/cheese-export-values-stretch-to-new-highs (accessed on 8 November 2023).
- Craig, W.J.; Mangels, A.R.; Brothers, C.J. Nutritional profiles of non-dairy plant-based cheese alternatives. Nutrients 2022, 14, 1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fan, M.; Wei, T.; Lu, X.; Liu, M.; Huang, Y.; Chen, F.; Luo, T.; Fan, Y.; Liu, R.; Deng, Z.; et al. Comprehensive quality evaluation of plant-based cheese analogues. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2023, 103, 6595–6604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Janhoj, T.; Frost, M.B.; Prinz, J.; Ipsen, R. Sensory and Instrumental Characterization of Low-Fat and Non-Fat Cream Cheese. Int. J. Food Prop. 2009, 12, 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Roigard, C.M.; Jin, D.; Xia, Y.; Zhong, F.; Hedderley, D.I. A single-response emotion word questionnaire for measuring product-related emotional associations inspired by a circumplex model of core affect: Method characterisation with an applied focus. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 83, 103805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraft Foods Kitchens. Philadelphia Cream Cheese Cookbook, 1st ed.; Beekman House: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 48–145. [Google Scholar]
- Lumivero. XLSTAT Statistical and Data Analysis Solution; Lumivero: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Vidal, L.; Ares, G.; Jaeger, S.R. Differences in citation proportions in CATA questions can be interpreted as differences perceived intensity of sensory attributes. J. Sensory Stud. 2021, 36, e12695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenacre, M. Correspondence Analysis in Practice, 3rd ed.; Chapman and Hall/CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016; pp. 9–16. [Google Scholar]
- Meyners, M.; Castura, J.C.; Carr, B.T. Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 30, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beh, E.J.; Lombardo, R. Correspondence Analysis: Theory, Practice and New Strategies; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: West Sussex, UK, 2014; pp. 302–336. [Google Scholar]
- Hailpern, S.M.; Visintainer, P.F. Odds ratios and logistic regression: Further examples of their use and interpretation. Stata J. 2003, 3, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moskowitz, H. Food and drink: Thoughts on base size in sensory and consumer research. Edelweiss Appl. Sci. Technol. 2020, 4, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giacalone, D.; Clausen, M.P.; Jaeger, S.R. Understanding barriers to consumption of plant-based foods and beverages: Insights from sensory and consumer science. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 48, 100919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gorman, M.; Moss, R.; Fisher, C.; Knowles, S.; Ritchie, C.; Schindell, K.; McSweeney, M.B. Perceptions of plant-based fish among Atlantic Canadians. J. Food Sci. 2023, 88, 2178–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tso, R.; Lim, A.J.; Forde, C.G. A critical appraisal of the evidence supporting consumer motivations for alternative proteins. Foods 2021, 10, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sogari, G.; Caputo, V.; Joshua Petterson, A.; Mora, C.; Boukid, F. A sensory study on consumer valuation for plant-based meat alternatives: What is liked and disliked the most? Food Res. Int. 2023, 169, 112813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chung, Y.-L.; Kuo, W.-Y.; Liou, B.-K.; Chen, P.-C.; Tseng, Y.-C.; Huang, R.-Y.; Tsai, M.-C. Identifying sensory drivers of liking for plant-based milk coffees: Implications for product development and application. J. Food Sci. 2022, 87, 5418–5429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muñoz, A.M.; Civille, G.V. Factors affecting perception and acceptance of food texture by American consumers. Food Rev. Int. 1987, 3, 285–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moss, R.; LeBlanc, J.; Gorman, M.; Ritchie, C.; Duizer, L.; McSweeney, M.B. A prospective review of the sensory properties of plant-based dairy and meat alternatives with a focus on texture. Foods 2023, 12, 1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DataM Intelligence. Vegan Frozen Pizza Market Size, Share, Industry, Forecast and Outlook (2023–2030). Available online: https://www.datamintelligence.com/research-report/vegan-frozen-pizza-market (accessed on 5 October 2023).
- Pointke, M.; Pawelzik, E. Plant-based alternative products: Are they healthy alternatives? Micro- and macronutrients and nutritional scoring. Nutrients 2022, 14, 601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beauchamp, G.K. Why do we like sweet taste: A bitter tale? Physiol. Behav. 2016, 164, 432–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hetherington, M.M.; Bell, A.; Rolls, B.J. Effects of repeat consumption on pleasantness, preference and intake. Br. Food J. 2000, 102, 507–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simons, T.; McNeil, C.; Pham, V.D.; Wang, S.; Wang, Y.; Slupsky, C.; Guinard, J.-X. Chemical and sensory analysis of commercial Navel oranges in California. NPJ Sci. Food 2019, 3, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stolzenbach, S.; Bredie, W.L.P.; Christensen, R.H.B.; Byrne, D.V. Understanding liking in relation to sensory characteristics, consumer concept associations, arousal potential and “appropriateness for use” using apple juice as an application. J. Sens. Stud. 2016, 31, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, N. Sweet/sour balance in champagne wine and dependence on taste/odour interactions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2002, 13, 295–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhat, S.; Marklund, M.; Henry, M.E.; Appel, L.J.; Croft, K.D.; Neal, B.; Wu, J.H.Y. A systematic review of the sources of dietary salt around the world. Adv. Nutr. 2020, 11, 677–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jervis, M.g.; Drake, M.a. The use of qualitative research methods in quantitative science: A review. J. Sens. Stud. 2014, 29, 234–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, M.; Badu Baiden, F.; Kim, S.; Lema, J. Identification of delighters and frustrators in vegan-friendly restaurant experiences via semantic network analysis: Evidence from online reviews. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Admin. 2023, 24, 260–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silanikove, N.; Leitner, G.; Merin, U. The Interrelationships between Lactose Intolerance and the Modern Dairy Industry: Global Perspectives in Evolutional and Historical Backgrounds. Nutrients 2015, 7, 7312–7331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Participant Characteristics | Total Sample n = 157 | PBCA Likers n = 111 |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 50 | 51 |
Female | 50 | 49 |
Age Group | ||
Younger (18–39 y.o.) | 50 | 55 |
Older (40–66 y.o.) | 50 | 45 |
Ethnicity * | ||
New Zealand European | 54 | 53 |
Māori | 7 | 5 |
Pacific Island | 6 | 8 |
European | 4 | 4 |
North American (Canada and US) | 1 | 0 |
Chinese | 11 | 14 |
Indian | 15 | 15 |
Southeast Asian | 11 | 9 |
African and Middle Eastern | 4 | 4 |
Household composition * | ||
No one, I live alone | 11 | 13 |
Spouse/partner | 59 | 58 |
Children aged under 18 | 35 | 33 |
Children aged over 18 | 17 | 18 |
Parents | 17 | 18 |
Flatmate/s | 10 | 11 |
Other ** | 4 | 5 |
Number of people in household | ||
1–2 people | 40 | 39 |
3–4 people | 47 | 50 |
5 or more people | 13 | 12 |
Household income (NZD per year) | ||
Less than NZD 50,000 | 6 | 5 |
NZD 50,000–NZD 79,999 | 13 | 7 |
NZD 80,000–NZD 99,999 | 10 | 11 |
NZD 100,000–NZD 119,999 | 18 | 20 |
NZD 120,000–NZD 149,999 | 13 | 13 |
NZD 150,000 or more | 32 | 36 |
I’d prefer not to say | 7 | 8 |
Previous plant-based/dairy-free cheese consumption | ||
Yes | 34 | 35 |
No | 66 | 65 |
Cream cheese—stated liking *** | 7.7 ± 1.3 | 7.6 ± 1.3 |
Cream cheese—stated consumption frequency | ||
Every day or almost everyday | 2 | 2 |
2 or more times a week | 13 | 12 |
About once a week | 16 | 18 |
About 2–3 times a month | 27 | 25 |
About once a month | 19 | 18 |
About once every 2–3 months | 18 | 20 |
About once a year or less | 3 | 5 |
Cream cheese—stated purchase frequency | ||
Have purchased in the last 2 months | 58 | 58 |
Have purchased in the last 3–12 months | 38 | 39 |
Have never purchased | 4 | 4 |
Sample | Mean Liking Total Sample n = 157 | Mean Liking PBCA Likers n = 111 | Mean Liking PBCA Dislikers n = 41 |
---|---|---|---|
PBCA1 | 6.1 b (1.7) | 6.5 a (1.5) | 5.1 b (1.8) |
PBCA2 | 5.9 b (2.0) | 6.7 a (1.4) | 3.3 c (1.1) |
Dairy1 | 6.8 a (1.6) | 6.6 a (1.7) | 7.3 a (1.1) |
Dairy2 | 6.8 a (1.5) | 6.7 a (1.7) | 7.1 a (1.1) |
Response Type and Term | Total Sample p-Value from Cochran’s Q Test | Total Sample Average Citation Frequency (%) | Total Sample Mean Impact on Liking $$,$$$ | PBCA Likers p-Value from Cochran’s Q Test | PBCA Likers Average Citation Frequency (%) | PBCA Likers Mean Impact on Liking $$,$$$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sensory | ||||||
Shiny/glossy appearance | <0.0001 | 18.6 | 0.5 ** | 0.000 | 18.7 | 0.2 ns |
Cow-like/barnyard flavour | 0.285 | 14.3 | 0.1 ns | 0.108 | 14.9 | −0.1 ns |
Buttery flavour | <0.0001 | 43.3 | 0.9 *** | <0.0001 | 45.9 | 0.7 *** |
Mild/bland flavour | 0.0001 | 32.3 | −0.7 *** | 0.064 | 31.8 | −0.6 *** |
Salty | <0.0001 | 17.2 | 0.0 ns | 0.002 | 15.8 | 0.2 ns |
Savoury flavour | 0.165 | 32.8 | 0.6 *** | 0.821 | 32.7 | 0.5 *** |
Firm | <0.0001 | 44.9 | −0.6 *** | <0.0001 | 43.7 | −0.2 ns |
Sweet | <0.0001 | 13.7 | 1.1 *** | 0.016 | 14.2 | 1.0 *** |
Sour/tangy | <0.0001 | 36.1 | −0.2 ns | <0.0001 | 38.5 | −0.1 ns |
Creamy/smooth mouthfeel | <0.0001 | 66.9 | 1.7 *** | <0.0001 | 70.9 | 1.2 *** |
Dissolves quickly in mouth | <0.0001 | 38.4 | 1.1 *** | <0.0001 | 42.3 | 0.9 *** |
Light/airy texture | <0.0001 | 24.4 | 0.8 *** | <0.0001 | 25.9 | 0.5 ** |
Emotional | ||||||
Energetic/Excited | 0.281 | 13.9 | 1.4 *** | 0.567 | 16.7 | 1.3 *** |
Enthusiastic/Inspired | 0.002 | 15.1 | 1.5 *** | 0.020 | 17.3 | 1.3 *** |
Happy/Satisfied | <0.0001 | 41.9 | 2.1 *** | 0.034 | 43.2 | 1.9 *** |
Secure/At ease | 0.009 | 28.8 | 1.3 *** | 0.378 | 30.0 | 1.1 *** |
Relaxed/Calm | 0.001 | 40.3 | 1.4 *** | 0.300 | 41.9 | 1.1 *** |
Passive/Quiet | 0.003 | 24.4 | −0.1 ns | 0.163 | 26.4 | −0.4 * |
Dull/Bored | 0.003 | 18.9 | −1.5 *** | 0.343 | 18.2 | −1.3 *** |
Blue/Uninspired | 0.000 | 13.2 | −1.9 *** | 0.314 | 11.5 | −1.5 *** |
Unhappy/Dissatisfied | <0.0001 | 15.1 | −2.7 *** | 0.142 | 12.4 | −2.2 *** |
Tense/Bothered | <0.0001 | 11.1 | −1.9 *** | 0.067 | 9.7 | −1.3 n/a |
Jittery/Nervous | 0.003 | 5.3 | −1.8 n/a | 0.212 | 4.5 | −1.3 n/a |
Active/Alert | 0.463 | 17.0 | 1.0 *** | 0.423 | 19.1 | 0.8 *** |
Conceptual | ||||||
Comforting | <0.0001 | 33.3 | 1.8 *** | 0.240 | 34.5 | 1.6 *** |
Traditional | 0.000 | 30.4 | 0.9 *** | 0.049 | 31.8 | 0.5 *** |
Cheap | 0.000 | 19.1 | −1.8 *** | 0.477 | 16.0 | −1.2 *** |
Unfamiliar | <0.0001 | 23.9 | −2.0 *** | 0.009 | 20.9 | −1.6 *** |
Wholesome | 0.010 | 22.3 | 1.3 *** | 0.089 | 24.1 | 1.0 *** |
Trustworthy | 0.038 | 17.5 | 1.5 *** | 0.739 | 19.6 | 1.3 *** |
Sophisticated | 0.672 | 11.3 | 1.1 *** | 0.962 | 13.1 | 1.0 *** |
Simple | 0.019 | 44.1 | 0.5 *** | 0.431 | 44.4 | 0.2 ns |
Natural | 0.001 | 36.3 | 1.3 *** | 0.259 | 36.7 | 1.1 *** |
Artisanal | 0.626 | 9.9 | 0.5 *** | 0.449 | 10.6 | 0.4 *** |
Nutritious | 0.004 | 17.7 | 1.0 *** | 0.087 | 18.7 | 0.8 *** |
Versatile | <0.0001 | 24.2 | 0.8 *** | 0.001 | 24.5 | 0.6 *** |
Genuine | <0.0001 | 27.7 | 1.5 *** | 0.001 | 30.0 | 1.3 *** |
Artificial | <0.0001 | 20.5 | −1.6 *** | 0.001 | 19.1 | −1.1 *** |
Situational | ||||||
To have with salmon | <0.0001 | 41.2 | 1.5 *** | <0.0001 | 43.0 | 1.2 *** |
To spread on a cracker with toppings | <0.0001 | 59.2 | 1.7 *** | 0.010 | 62.4 | 1.4 *** |
As a spread on a bagel/sandwich | <0.0001 | 64.2 | 1.6 *** | 0.001 | 68.7 | 1.0 *** |
To use as an ingredient in a dip/sauce | <0.0001 | 44.7 | 0.9 *** | <0.0001 | 45.3 | 0.7 *** |
To dip raw vegetables in (e.g., carrot, cucumber) | <0.0001 | 40.8 | 1.3 *** | <0.0001 | 41.4 | 1.0 *** |
To make icing for cakes | 0.000 | 27.9 | 0.6 *** | 0.000 | 30.0 | 0.6 *** |
In a cheesecake filling | 0.036 | 42.7 | 0.9 *** | 0.362 | 44.8 | 0.7 *** |
To use in baking (e.g., muffins) | 0.004 | 40.9 | 0.5 *** | 0.032 | 41.0 | 0.6 *** |
For sushi filling | 0.117 | 33.1 | 1.1 *** | 0.783 | 34.7 | 0.8 *** |
To use as a butter replacement | 0.001 | 37.7 | 0.6 *** | 0.001 | 40.3 | 0.4 *** |
For a creamy smoothie | 0.002 | 19.7 | 0.7 *** | 0.018 | 20.7 | 0.7 *** |
To use as a pizza topping | 0.847 | 27.5 | 0.8 *** | 0.508 | 29.5 | 0.5 *** |
Sensory CATA Term | Category of Predicted Non-Sensory CATA Term ## | Selection of Sensory CATA Term Increased the Probability (Odds) of Non-Sensory CATA Term Selection | Selection of Sensory CATA Term Decreased the Probability (Odds) of Non-Sensory CATA Term Selection |
---|---|---|---|
Appearance | |||
Shiny/glossy | Emotional | Happy/satisfied 2.58 Active/alert 2.35 | |
Conceptual | Sophisticated 2.50 Versatile 1.99 | ||
Situational | |||
Taste | |||
Salty | Emotional | ||
Conceptual | Artificial 2.40 | ||
Situational | |||
Sour/tangy | Emotional | Active/alert 2.87 Unhappy/dissatisfied 2.14 | |
Conceptual | Artisanal 2.39 Versatile 1.70 | ||
Situational | To use in baking (e.g., muffins) 0.54 To use as a butter replacement 0.59 | ||
Sweet | Emotional | ||
Conceptual | Simple 0.43 | ||
Situational | |||
Flavour | |||
Buttery | Emotional | Happy/satisfied 2.27 | |
Conceptual | Comforting 1.97 | ||
Situational | To use as a butter replacement 2.83 | ||
Cow-like/barnyard | Emotional | Secure/at ease 2.36 | |
Conceptual | Wholesome 2.33 | ||
Situational | |||
Mild/bland | Emotional | Dull/bored 7.35 Relaxed/calm 2.15 Passive/quiet 2.00 | |
Conceptual | Simple 3.82 Cheap 2.22 | ||
Situational | To dip raw vegetables in (e.g., carrot, cucumber) 0.46 | ||
Savoury | Emotional | Jittery/nervous 2.99 Happy/satisfied 2.09 | |
Conceptual | |||
Situational | |||
Texture | |||
Firm | Emotional | Tense/bothered 3.21 | |
Conceptual | Unfamiliar 2.68 Artificial 2.13 | ||
Situational | To use as a pizza topping 2.29 | To dip raw vegetables in (e.g., carrot, cucumber) 0.46 To spread on a cracker with toppings 0.57 | |
Light/airy | Emotional | ||
Conceptual | Unfamiliar 0.34 | ||
Situational | To have with salmon 2.07 | ||
Mouthfeel | |||
Creamy/smooth | Emotional | Happy/satisfied 7.17 Secure/at ease 2.60 Relaxed/calm 2.51 | |
Conceptual | Comforting 4.96 Versatile 3.32 Trustworthy 3.28 | ||
Situational | To dip raw vegetables in (e.g., carrot, cucumber) 3.12 As a spread on a bagel/sandwich 2.49 To have with salmon 2.34 To use as an ingredient in a dip/sauce 2.10 In a cheesecake filling 1.90 | ||
Dissolves quickly | Emotional | Happy/satisfied 2.62 | |
Conceptual | Nutritious 2.72 Genuine 2.25 Versatile 2.20 | ||
Situational | To dip raw vegetables in (e.g., carrot, cucumber) 2.17 As a spread on a bagel/sandwich 2.05 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jaeger, S.R.; Jin, D.; Roigard, C.M. Plant-Based Alternatives Need Not Be Inferior: Findings from a Sensory and Consumer Research Case Study with Cream Cheese. Foods 2024, 13, 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13040567
Jaeger SR, Jin D, Roigard CM. Plant-Based Alternatives Need Not Be Inferior: Findings from a Sensory and Consumer Research Case Study with Cream Cheese. Foods. 2024; 13(4):567. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13040567
Chicago/Turabian StyleJaeger, Sara R., David Jin, and Christina M. Roigard. 2024. "Plant-Based Alternatives Need Not Be Inferior: Findings from a Sensory and Consumer Research Case Study with Cream Cheese" Foods 13, no. 4: 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13040567