Comparing a standardized to a product-specific emoji list for evaluating food products by children. (March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schouteten, Joachim J.; Verwaeren, Jan; Gellynck, Xavier; Almli, Valérie L.
• Is Part Of: Food quality and preference. Volume 72(2019)
• Page Start: 86
• Page End: 97
• Publication Date: 2019-03
• Subjects: Child -- Biscuit -- Emoji -- Check-all-that-apply (CATA) -- Hedonic; Food preferences -- Periodicals; Food -- Quality -- Periodicals; Food industry and trade -- Quality control -- Periodicals; Préférences alimentaires -- Périodiques; Aliments -- Qualité -- Périodiques; Aliments -- Industrie et commerce -- Qualité -- Contrôle -- Périodiques; Food industry and trade -- Quality control; Food preferences; Food -- Quality; Periodicals; 664
• DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.09.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0950-3293

Abstract

Highlights: Product-specific emoji list based upon literature and consumer input. Emoji measurements provide additional information beyond liking. Product-specific emoji list discriminates better than standardized list. Abstract: There is a growing interest in the emotional associations of children to food products in order to better understand their preferences. Recently, emoji were suggested as a novel way to assess these emotional associations. In this study, 172 children aged 8–11 years evaluated the emotional profile of five biscuits in a check-all-that-apply task, where half of the subjects (n = 87) evaluated the applicability of 38 emoji obtained from a standardized emoji list, while the other half (n = 85) worked with 20 emoji from a product-specific emoji list. A similar average number of emoji were used by the participants for the emotional profiling of the samples in both approaches. Results showed that the product-specific emoji list was better able to discriminate between product samples compared to the standardized emoji list. Several emoji were even discriminating between similarly liked samples when using a product-specific emoji list, while only one emoji was able to discriminate between equally-liked samples when using a standardized emoji list. Both approaches produced similar emotional spaces and product configurations, although one needs to consider that the first dimension of the correspondence analysis for the product-specific emoji list explained over 90% of the total variance against 60% for the standardized list. While more research is recommended, this study indicates that a product-specific emoji list could facilitate the emotional product discrimination by children.