2-zatavickers

7/30/2019 2-ZataVickers

1/32

Zata VickersDepartment of Food Science andNutrition


2/32

2

Likingis the pleasure oneexperiences when eating orusing a product

Zata Vickers' presentation from INNOVA 2009


3/32

Biological/Physiological Innate likes/dislikesLearn consequences of eating

Relevance

ExposureEvaluative conditioning

Flavor-Flavor

Flavor-Hedonic value

Social/Cultural

3

How we acquire liking



4/32

Biological/Physiological

Innatelikes/dislikes

Taste LikesSweetUmami

Salty

Learned consequences of eating

Photos from Steiner, J.E., 1974. Innate

discriminative human facial expressions to taste and

smell stimuli. Ann. N.Y. Ac. Sci., 237: 229233.

4

Zata Vickers' presentation from INNOVA

2009


5/32



DislikesBitterSourIrritants


Photos from Steiner, J.E., 1974. Innate discriminative

human facial expressions to taste and smell stimuli. Ann.

N.Y. Ac. Sci., 237: 229233.

5


2009


6/32

Prop taste intensity

Vegetable Bitterness

Vegetable liking

Vegetable intake

.45

-.20

.26From Dinehart et al. 2006.Physiology and Behavior 87, 304

Bitterness and sweetness explain 32% of liking


7/32




OdorsNone

Textures

Difficult to control (slippery, dry, adhesive),Painful (rough/harsh/sharp)

7


2009


8/32


Innate likes/dislikes Learned consequences of eating

8

Learned Aversions Paired with nausea Only about have them


2009


9/32


Innate likes/dislikes

Learned Likes Calorie density

e.g. Johnson and others 1991; More effective when hungry (e.g. Appleton andothers 2006)


9


2009


10/32

Two yogurt drinks high fat or low fat (220 or 110 kcal/serving)

2 flavors pumpkin and orange-chocolate

flavors balanced across fat contents

8 opportunities to eat each yogurt

Before and after preferences for the 2 flavors.

From Johnson et al 1991, Physiology & Behavior 50 1245-1251

10


2009


11/32

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Preferencec

hange

Hi Caloric Density

Low Caloric Density

Conditioned Preference for Energy Dense Beverage

From Johnson et al 1991, Physiology & Behavior 50 1245-1251

11Zata Vickers' presentation from INNOVA 2009


12/32

Social/CulturalExposure Flavor-Flavor

12

Flavor- Hedonic Value

Mere exposure Pliner, 1982


2009


13/32

2.6

3.1

3.6

4.1

4.6

0 5 10 20

Lking

Number of times tasted

Immediately after

exposureThe next week

13From Pliner, 1982

2.6

3.1

3.6

4.1

4.6

0 5 10 20

Lking

Number of times tasted

Immediately after

exposureThe next week



14/32


14


Pair new flavor with a liked flavor

Evaluative Conditioning


2009


15/32

All participants rated liking of a novel flavor

3 groups 1 paired flavor with sucrose

2 paired flavor with quinine

3 paired flavor with water

Re-rated liking of flavor

15

From Yeomans 2006 Physiology & Behavior 87 (4) 800-804


2009


16/32

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Sucrose Quinine Water

Changein

odorp

leasantness

Taste used in training

16

FromYeomans 2006 Physiology & Behavior 87 (4) 800-804



17/32


17


Pair new food with a liked personor social situation


2009


18/32

Effect of presentation context on preference forsnack foods Four groups of children:

Reward Non-contingent attention Non social Control - foods at snack time

18

From Birch et al 1980 Child Development 51: 856-861

Flavor Hedonic Value


2009


19/32

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15Positionin

preferen

ceorder

Weeks

Reward Noncont ingent At tent ion Nonsocial Familiar ity Cont rol

19

From Birch et al 1980 Child Development 51: 856-861

6-weeks later



20/32

20

From: Winkielman, Berridge and Wilbarger,2005. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin 31 (1) 121-135

Happy or Angry

Subliminal 16 msec

Unconscious Affective Reactions to Happy vs. Angry

Faces Influence Judgments of Value

Taste and Rate Drink



21/32


22/32

Physiological/Biological

Innately liked sensations?

Learned consequences

Social/Cultural (from Paul Rozins work) Exposure

Evaluative Conditioning : Flavor-Flavor

Eat as a condiment with other liked foods

Flavor-hedonic value Parents, older siblings, admired peers

22Zata Vickers' presentation from INNOVA

2009


23/32

23

Relevance

Zata Vickers' presentation from INNOVA2009


24/32

24

Relevance



25/32

25

Because of individual

variability

we use large numbers ofpeople to measure liking



26/32

26

Because of individual

experiences,

we use current or potentialusers of the product



27/32

27

Few homogenous participants

+Happy moderator

+

Positive noncontingent attention

=

LIKING!



28/32

28

Happy greeters may boost

liking ratings


2009


29/32

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

single product neutral moderator

Liking

Liking for a single productNeutral moderator



30/32

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

single product neutral moderator single product happy moderator

Liking

Liking for a single productneutral moderator vs. happy moderator



31/32

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

neutral moderator happy moderator

Liking

yours

competitors

Relative positioning is more stablethan absolute level of liking



32/32

Physiological/BiologicalInnately liked sensationsLearned consequences

Social/CulturalExposureEvaluative Conditioning :Flavor-Flavor

Flavor-hedonic value

Does it make sense to ask peoplewhy they like something


2-zatavickers

Documents