Introduction
In research, sensory scientists are often confronted with needs from commercial or technical departments, wanting as much information as possible from consumers. In agriculture, breeding substitutes the development process in an industrial setting. In contrary to industrial product development, breeding a new variety is more time intensive. It can take up to 20 years to commercialise a new apple variety. During this intensive labour, most breeders want feedback on certain product characteristics preferably from consumers that they can include directly Relevant sensory characteristics they ask for often evolve rather from descriptive profiling and include firmness, crispness, flesh texture, flavour, acidity, sweetness and juiciness.
Sensory scientists are responsible for the way questions are formulated to gain valid consumer results. It is best practise to ask consumers only what they are able and willing to answer. Yet, there is not always common sense on consumers sensory comprehension ability. This study focusses on the validation of product specific attributes used in questionnaires on apple acceptance testing.
Table 1: Topic guide for focus group interviews
Material and Method
Focus groups have been used to evaluate the consumer comprehension of key sensory apple characteristics given by the breeders and to investigate which of these are of main importance independently of consumption habits.
The groups were recruited based on their consumption habits – one group was consuming one or less apples per week (low users - LU). The second group was consuming more than three to four apples a week (heavy users - HU) assuming that sensory comprehension is dependent on consumption.
The focus group discussions followed a topic guide, which has been developed by the research team members (see Table 1). The outline of the study consisted of four consecutive steps, which involved (1) free association of relevant sensory apple characteristics, (2) perception of sensory characteristics within tasting
context, (3) comprehension of given sensory attributes &
(4) individual importance ranking of these characteristics.
We focus here on (2) and (3).
Results and Discussion
Overall, active and passive sensory vocabulary differed among participants and also between the group of HU and LU. HU used a less comprehensive terminology compared to LU. When looking at the used terminology, it was apparent, that HU have access to more precise sensory specific attributes (Table 2). The two groups mainly differ when discussing about properties without being able to taste an apple. In context of tasting, LU are also able to express their tasting perception. These findings show not only difficulties in understanding
product-specific sensory attributes, but also discrepancies in comprehension between the two focus groups.
Firmness and crispness showed the biggest literal deviation.
Table 2: Consumer Attributes (HU/LU) when presented with apples varieties strongly differing in sensory characteristics. Terms were allocated to sensory categories.
Results suggest, that researchers have to be very careful in selecting product specific attributes when developing consumers questionnaires. Attributes given were not all understood uniform. When used in this way, they include the risk of invalid consumer responses. If it is unavoidable to use product-dependent attributes in consumers hedonic questionnaires, which typically cover acceptance and/or preference ratings or JAR scales, we suggest to focus only on those commonly understood which were overall flavor, juiciness, acidity and sweetness.
Developing Questionnaires by Consumer Feedback in Focus Groups
Christine Brugger*, Claudia Good
Agroscope Changins-Waedenswil ACW, Sensory Science, Schloss, Post Box, CH-8820 Waedenswil Contact: christine.brugger@acw.admin.ch
Sensory characteristics are not always commonly understood by end consumers, neither within or without context and must be careful chosen when developing questionnaires. Especially low users’
terminology was not necessarily in line with sensory descriptive vocabulary given by breeders.
However, as focus group results are based on small sampling, further research is needed with larger sample sizes.
Sensory characteristics Heavy users (HU) Light users (LU) Texture skin Waxy, not tender, pretty ripe, not firm No comments
Taste Tart, sour, sweet Sweet, sour, pear, intensive, tasteless, neutral, refreshing, distinct taste, chemical, smoky, tart, furry on tongue,, not describable, unripe Flavor Characteristic flavor, special flavor,
flavor, like nail polish
No comments
Texture flesh Soft, firm, crisp, consistency, chewy, mealy
Hard, breaks when bitten in, soft, ordinary, sponginess melts on tongue, mealy, pleasant, difficult to describe, firm skin, grainy meat, seedy rotten
Juiciness Juicy, juicy enough Juicy, satiating, splashes when bitten in
Appearance Nice color, crimson color signifies dryness and mealiness, shiny
Flesh gets brown, poisoned apple, overripe, bilious green, unripe, looks sour
Hedonic -: Desolate, unpleasant, not so good, boring
+: Well balanced, very good, pleasant, has character, natural
-: Boring, not so good, not nice, tasteless, strange taste +: Interesting, not so bad, attractive
