2.1.3. Participant Recruitment and Orientation

The study protocol described here received the approval of the WSU Institutional Review Board for conducting tests with human subjects, under the title Consumer Preferences of Jambalaya IRB #16994.

Participant Recruitment and Selection: 50 participants with previous experience in sensory evaluation (18 male, 32 female, ages 21 to 78 years, mean age = 40 years) were recruited through the WSU Sensory Evaluation Listserv. Most of the participants were students, staff, or retirees of WSU and community members living in the Pullman (WA) and Moscow (ID) region.

The participants were recruited based on the following three criteria: expressed liking for and frequency of consumption of RTEs (at least twice a month); not presenting allergies to the jambalaya ingredients; and being available and committed to doing the sensory testing at the three defined time points.

Orientation and Procedures for the HUT: The jambalaya samples were tested in a home-use test. A 30 min orientation session was conducted on the same day of the first sensory evaluation time point. The objectives of the session were to explain to the participants the general aim of the study; to provide instructions on how they should manage the two jambalaya samples prior to and during consumption (e.g., heating instructions); to explain how the sensory evaluation was conducted online; and to explain how to participate in the online auction (Figure 1).

Because the jambalaya samples provided a full serving so that two adults could portion out and evaluate the same serving, participants who were able to have one other person evaluate the samples with them (i.e., partner, husband, wife, friend, roommate) were encouraged to do so. The requirements for a partner to participate were to be over 18 years old and not present allergies to the jambalaya ingredients. All participants' partners signed a consent form in accordance with IRB #16994. A total of 21 partners joined the study (11 male, 10 female, ages 26 to 85 mean age = 44 years). Their answers to the sensory evaluation were collected with a paper-based questionnaire. Partners did not participate in the on-line auction.

As shown in Figure 1, the participants picked up the two jambalaya samples from the Food Science and Human Nutrition Building on the specified evaluation day. At each time point, the samples were provided to the participants in a small cooler that contained the two jambalaya samples packed inside a plastic bag with a sticker that indicated the heating instructions and the order in which the samples should be tested. Each jambalaya meal was assigned a three-digit code so the participants could easily identify each meal. The serving order was randomized across participants. In the heating instructions, the participants were asked to first puncture the tray's lid on each corner using a knife; then to microwave the meal on Power 9 for 3 min; let the sample rest for 1 min inside the microwave; afterwards to take the tray out of the microwave and to carefully stir the

content with a spoon; finally, to transfer the content to a white container so they could easily conduct the sensory evaluation. The participants were indicated to evaluate the jambalaya meals during dinner time, between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. distributed to the participants, so both the MAPS sample and the control looked the same. The cooler also contained an ice pack (Freez Pak™ Mini, Lifoam, MD, USA) to keep the jambalaya samples at a cool temperature and 2 units of unsalted crackers (Nabisco, NJ, USA) were provided to serve as palate cleansers.

The control trays had been thawed in water at room temperature for 8 h before being

meal was assigned a three-digit code so the participants could easily identify each meal. The serving order was randomized across participants. In the heating instructions, the participants were asked to first puncture the tray's lid on each corner using a knife; then to microwave the meal on Power 9 for 3 min; let the sample rest for 1 min inside the microwave; afterwards to take the tray out of the microwave and to carefully stir the content with a spoon; finally, to transfer the content to a white container so they could easily conduct the sensory evaluation. The participants were indicated to evaluate the jambalaya

*Foods* **2021**, *10*, 1623 7 of 19

meals during dinner time, between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m.

**Figure 1.** Instructions provided to the panelists in the home-use test evaluation of jambalaya. **Figure 1.** Instructions provided to the panelists in the home-use test evaluation of jambalaya.

*2.2. Evaluation Procedures*  2.2.1. HUT Evaluation HUT Scales: Participants in the home-use test used a total of four different scales to evaluate the entrees described here. Question design and data acquisition were accomplished with Compusense® Cloud (Guelph, ON, Canada) software. The control trays had been thawed in water at room temperature for 8 h before being distributed to the participants, so both the MAPS sample and the control looked the same. The cooler also contained an ice pack (Freez Pak™ Mini, Lifoam, MD, USA) to keep the jambalaya samples at a cool temperature and 2 units of unsalted crackers (Nabisco, NJ, USA) were provided to serve as palate cleansers.

#### A 7-point hedonic scale [13] was used to test the liking/acceptance of different sen-*2.2. Evaluation Procedures*

#### sory modalities: the overall liking; aroma; overall flavor; texture acceptance of the shrimp, chicken and sausage; and the overall liking. 2.2.1. HUT Evaluation

HUT Scales: Participants in the home-use test used a total of four different scales to evaluate the entrees described here. Question design and data acquisition were accomplished with Compusense® Cloud (Guelph, ON, Canada) software.

A 7-point hedonic scale [13] was used to test the liking/acceptance of different sensory modalities: the overall liking; aroma; overall flavor; texture acceptance of the shrimp, chicken and sausage; and the overall liking.

A 5-point just-about-right (JAR) scale was used to test the spiciness and texture perception of each of the three meat components (shrimp, chicken and sausage).

A 3-point JAR scale about perception of the size of the jambalaya meal was asked at the end of the study. The scale ranged from 1 (=less than I would like) to 3 (=more

than I would like). The participants were asked about their perception of the unit/tray size (250 g = 1 serving); the quantity of sauce; the quantity of vegetables; the size of the vegetables; the quantity of each of the meats, shrimp, chicken, and sausage; the level of saltiness; and their preference for tails off the shrimp.

Participants were also asked (open question) to describe the experience participating in the HUT. Comments were collected, revised and categorized into seven groups. The categories were validated by the agreement between two researchers of the study. The categories are the following: enjoyed experience with partner, HUT vs. in-lab evaluation, time flexibility, fun/positive experience, liking of the meals and willingness to pay for the meals.

Willingness to Pay Evaluation: In collaboration with the School of Economics, a complementary study, an online auction was conducted to measure product satisfaction by the willingness of participants to pay for the jambalaya samples. At each of the three evaluation time points (Weeks 2, 8 and 12), after the sensory evaluation component, the participants were asked to submit their bids (i.e., their willingness to pay) for a unit (equivalent to 9 oz-250 g) of each of the jambalaya sample tested. Compensation for doing the sensory evaluations as well as the online auction at each of the three evaluation points totaled \$90.00 in cash mailed to the participants. Partners were not included for this component of the study.

The online auction followed a second price auction protocol. The protocol and the benefits of using this type of action to determine the willingness to pay are described by Lusk and Shogren (2007) [26].

The protocol followed in the present study is reported by Garrido et al. (2021) [24]. To determine the winner of the auction, the first step was to randomly select one of the jambalaya samples (control or MAPS). The winner of the auction was the participant who placed the highest bid for the selected sample. The winner received one meal unit of this meal, and in exchange, they had to pay the market price, or the second highest bid. This process was repeated at each of evaluation time points and was done after the sensory testing of the meals.

At the first evaluation time point (2 weeks of storage), no information about the two samples of jambalaya was provided before participants submitted their bids in the auction. The only information provided was the three-digit code or identification number for each meal. At the second and third evaluation time points, two pieces of information were disclosed to the participants before bidding. The order for receiving these two pieces of information was randomized among the participants. At the second time point (8 weeks of storage), the information about the name of the technology used to preserve each jambalaya sample (MAPS versus freezing) was provided to 25 participants. The information about the environmental impacts of the MAPS sample versus the frozen sample was provided to the remaining 25 participants. At the third time point (12 weeks of storage), the information disclosure was reversed. To avoid interfering with the participants' ratings of the sensory attributes of the meals, the information about the name of the technology and the environmental impacts was disclosed after the sensory testing [24].
