3.1.2. Willingness to Pay as Evaluated with an Online Auction

To evaluate the participants willingness to pay for the jambalaya meals an online auction was conducted. The auction protocol established that participants received money for placing the bids at each evaluation time point, and because the economic resources were limited, only the 50 participants joined the online auction. The bidding was performed based on the sensory evaluation of each of the jambalaya meals. Information of the processing system was not included at the time of placing the bid at the first time point; this type of information was given at the second and third time points. However, during these two points, the information was provided after the participants conducted the sensory evaluation and prior to submitting their bids [24]. As previously mentioned, the effect of the processing method, storage time and their interaction on the bid values were also analyzed. The interaction was not significant and for this reason the main effects were interpreted. The bid values did not significantly differ (*p* = 0.48) between the MAPS- processed jambalaya and the control, and they were not influenced by the storage time (Table 4).

The bids values assigned by the participants to the meals were comparable to commercially available jambalaya meals. The mean bid values ranged from \$3.48–3.74 for the MAPS-processed jambalaya and from \$3.33–3.56 for the control.

3.1.3. Effect of Eating with Having a Partner on the Consumer Liking Scores of the Jambalaya Meals

To test Hypothesis 2, the effect of eating with a partner in the liking scores of the sensory characteristics of the meals were also evaluated (Table 6).

**Table 6.** Consumer liking responses and bid values for jambalaya meals as evaluated by participants who had or did not have a partner (*n* = 50).


<sup>1</sup> Different letters within a column (a,b) indicate that the tested parameter mean value was different among those participants with a partner vs. those without at *p* < 0.05 as determined using Tukey's HSD. Data are collapsed over processing method and storage time. Results range between 1 and 7 due to the use of a 7-point hedonic scale.

> It was determined that those participants having a partner gave a significantly higher score (*p* = 0.04) to the appearance of the jambalaya meals. The value was 5.88 vs. 5.54 for those participants without a partner. This liking value is associated with a rating between like slightly and like moderately on a seven-point hedonic scale. Overall, there was a trend in the liking scores of the evaluated sensory attributes; those participants with a partner gave higher scores to the liking of all the evaluated sensory attributes of the meals. Laureati and Pagliarini (2019) [5] defined three main contextual factors that influence eating behavior when conducting consumer testing, the meal (i.e., sensory characteristics); the physical environment (i.e., appropriate location and setting); and the social environment or social interaction (i.e., people present at the experiment). In this study, each of those factors was explored and the social environment seemed to be positively impacted by the partners addition. Piliner, Bell, Kinchla and Hirsch (2003) [33] stated that social interaction has a positive effect on food consumption of naturally created groups but not artificially created. In our study, the partners (spouse, friend, roommate) could be categorized as members of a naturally created group for the participants or that will evoke a more realistic consumption situation [34,35].

> Petit and Siefferman (2007) [36] maintain that conducting food testing in naturalistic conditions is more advantageous than in-lab tests due to the realism of the evaluation, but situational tests such as HUTs can be more expensive and time-consuming than in-lab ones. As shown in our study, the addition of a partner could mitigate some of these downsides, mainly the one related to costs. Currently, with COVID-19 restrictions, including responses from partners could represent a simple option for sensory scientists and food companies to increase the number of respondents and enhance ecological validity of the study.

> In this study the modified HUT and an online auction seemed to positively impact the degree of acceptance of the RTE meals.

> To address Hypothesis 2, on the last evaluation time point the 50 participants were asked to provide feedback about their experience participating in the HUT. The comments were carefully reviewed and divided into seven categories (Table 7). Almost 30% of the participants of the study indicated that they had a positive experience when sharing the evaluation of the meals with their partners. One of the participants mentioned "sharing the samples with my partner is enjoyable, because after we record our ratings individually, we compare and discuss the two samples".


**Table 7.** Categories, frequency of mention and some comment examples from the participants of the study (*n* = 50).

The category HUT vs. in-lab evaluation shows how over 40% of the participants preferred doing the sensory evaluation of the jambalaya meals at home vs. at the SST or in-lab set up. One of the participants mentioned "I like bringing the samples home to taste because it is more realistic and relevant to how I would actually eat the food"; this comment points to the value of conducting the sensory evaluation under a setup that is more realistic and familiar to the participant. These aspects contribute to the enhancement of the ecological validity of the study [1,36]. Time flexibility was another topic mentioned by the participants in their comments. Almost 15% of their comments indicated that the participants liked being able to take their time and enjoy each sample without feeling rushed. This is another positive component of the in-home evaluation setup. Another category of frequently mentioned comments (42%) was that the participants had a fun or positive experience while participating in the study.

The two final categories were liking of the meal and willingness to pay-related comments. Almost 20% of the participants mentioned liking the meals and almost 10% expressed their willingness to pay for the jambalaya meals if they were available in the market.

Based on the type of comments mentioned by the participants of the HUT, it seems that overall, the HUT was a pleasant, positive experience that allowed them to manage the Willingness to pay for the

Liking of the meals 16

time for evaluating the meals at their own convenience. This seems like a promising way to accomplish Hypothesis 2. meals <sup>8</sup> "I could better consider if the sample would be something I would purchase" "We would be willing to spend a little more on these since they have a large variety in them…"

"I enjoyed being able to do this at home" "This was fun to participate in and it was easy"

"I very much enjoyed the samples and will be sad to not have them anymore" "I enjoyed the food and getting cash for participating" "…the jambalaya was something I looked forward to, I didn't get tired of it" "I could have eaten both samples myself"

"We both liked the meals and would definitely purchase if available at the store" "I hope I will see the samples in the store"
