Skip to main content
Log in

The effects of contexts on consumer emotions and acceptance of a domestic food and an unfamiliar ethnic food: a cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and Korean consumers

  • Published:
Food Science and Biotechnology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Contexts are known to affect hedonic and emotional responses to various food products. This study was conducted to investigate the effects of context on consumer acceptance and emotion of a domestic food and an unfamiliar ethnic food. Here, 97 Chinese and 83 Koreans rated hedonic and emotional responses to Korean shallot-seafood pancake (Haemul-pajeon) and Chinese shallot pancake (Cōngyóubĭng), in a sensory or ethnic context. Context did not significantly influence liking, but the Koreans’ liking for Cōngyóubĭng significantly decreased in ethnic context compared to sensory context. Context significantly influenced eliciting positive emotions to domestic foods, whereas the context that increased positive emotions differed by the nationality of the panel. Ethnic food evaluated in ethnic context elicited emotions with negative valence or high arousal, whereas actual tasting significantly reduced these emotions. The results suggest that previous experiences and associations moderate the effect of context on emotions and acceptance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cardello AV, Meiselman HL, Schutz HG, Craig C, Given Z, Lesher LL, Eicher S. Measuring emotional responses to foods and food names using questionnaires. Food Qual. Prefer. 24: 243-250 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardello AV, Meiselman HL. Contextual influences on consumer responses to food products. Vol. 2, pp. 3-67. In: Methods in consumer research. Ares G, Varela P (eds). Woodhead Publishing, Ltd., Duxford, UK (2018)

  • Dalenberg JR, Gutjar S, ter Horst GJ, de Graaf K, Renken RJ, Jager G. Evoked emotions predict food choice. PLOS One. 9: e115388 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danner L, Ristic R, Johnson TE, Meiselman HL, Hoek AC, Jeffery DW, Bastian SEP. Context and wine quality effects on consumers’ mood, emotions, liking and willingness to pay for Australian Shiraz wines. Food Res. Int. 89: 254-265 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet PMA, Schifferstein HNJ. Positive and negative emotions associated with food experience. Appetite. 50: 290-301 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorado R, Chaya C, Tarrega A, Hort J. The impact of using a written scenario when measuring emotional response to beer. Food Qual. Prefer. 50: 38-47 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Standford University Press, Redwood, CA, USA (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine JJR, Scherer KR. The global meaning structure of the motion domain: Investigating the complementarity of multiple perspectives on meaning. pp. 106-125. In: Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook. Fontaine JJR, Scherer KR, Soriano C (eds). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2013)

  • Gutjar S, Dalenberg JR, de Graaf C, de Wijk RA, Palascha A, Renken RJ, Jager G. What reported food-evoked emotions may add: A model to predict consumer food choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 45: 140-148 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein KA, Hamid N, Jaeger SR, Delahunty CM. Effects of evoked consumption contexts on hedonic ratings: A case study with two fruit beverages. Food Qual. Prefer. 26: 35-44 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hersleth M, Monteleone E, Segtnan A, Næs T. Effects of evoked meal contexts on consumers’ responses to intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes in dry-cured ham. Food Qual. Prefer. 40: 191-198 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong JH, Park HS, Chung SJ, Chung L, Cha SM, Lê S, Kim KO. Effect of familiarity on a cross-cultural acceptance of a sweet ethnic food: A case study with Korean traditional cookie (Yackwa). J. Sens. Stud. 29: 110-125 (2014)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jang G, Paik WK. Korean Wave as tool for Korea’s new cultural diplomacy. Adv. Appl. Sociol. 2: 196-202 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SH, Hong JH. Comparison of emotional terms elicited for Korean home meal replacement between Chinese and Koreans. Kor. J. Food Sci. Technol. 52: 1-5 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwon DY. What is ethnic food? J. Ethnic Food. 2: 1 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mak AH, Lumbers M, Eves A. Globalization and food consumption in tourism. Ann. Tourism Res. 39: 171-196 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiselman HL. A review of the current state of emotion research in product development. Food Res. Int. 76: 192-199 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mordor Intelligence, Ethnic Foods Market—Growth, Trends and Forecasts (2019–2024). Available from: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/ethnic-foods-market. Accessed Nov. 26, 2019

  • Park JH, Trust in Korean Foods … K-food is Booming in China. Economic Review 2016. Available from: http://www.econovill.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=287476. Accessed Nov. 22, 2017.

  • Piqueras-Fiszman B, Jaeger SR. The impact of evoked consumption contexts and appropriateness on emotion responses. Food Qual. Prefer. 32: 277-288 (2014a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piqueras-Fiszman B, Jaeger SR. Emotion responses under evoked consumption contexts: A focus on the consumers’ frequency of product consumption and the stability of responses. Food Qual. Prefer. 35: 24-31 (2014b)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piqueras-Fiszman B, Spence S. Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Qual. Prefer. 40:165-179 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin P, Tuorila H. Simultaneous and temporal contextual influences on food acceptance. Food Qual. Prefer. 4: 11-20 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin P, Vollmecke TA. Food likes and dislikes. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 6(1): 433-456 (1986)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Setser C, Dacremont C, Deroy O, Valentin D. Investigating consumers’ representations of beers through a free association task: A comparison between packaging and blind conditions. Food Qual. Pref. 28: 475-483 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shim HK, Lee CL, Valentin D, Hong JH. How a combination of two contradicting concepts is represented: The representation of premium instant noodles and premium yogurt by different age groups. Food Res. Int. 125: 108506 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinelli S, Monteleone E. Emotional responses to products. Vol. 1, pp. 261-296. In: Methods in consumer research. Ares G, Varela P (eds). Woodhead Publishing, Ltd., Duxford, UK (2018)

  • Spinelli S, Masi C, Zoboli GP, Prescott J, Monteleone E. Emotional responses to branded and unbranded foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 42: 1-11 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasci AD, Knutson BJ. An argument for providing authenticity and familiarity in tourism destinations. J. Hosp. Leis. Market. 11: 85-109 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson DM, Crocker C. A data-driven classification of feelings. Food Qual. Prefer. 27: 137-152 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vignolles A, Pichon PE. A taste of nostalgia: Links between nostalgia and food consumption. Qual. Market Res. Int. J. 17: 225-238 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan Y. Food safety and social risk in contemporary China. J. Asian Stud. 71: 705-729 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture and Forestry (IPET) through High Value-added Food Technology Development Program, funded by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (Grant No. 315068-3).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jae-Hee Hong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Thee authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: F-values and p-values associated with effects of sample, tasting, context and interactions between three factors on emotion RATA test by Chinese consumer

 

Sample

Tasting

Context

Sample × context

Tasting × context

Sample × tasting

S × T × Cb

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

Adventurous

6.027

0.016 a

106.908

< 0.001

3.566

0.062

0.056

0.814

0.009

0.925

4.717

0.032

0.109

0.742

Affectionate

0.109

0.742

0.565

0.454

0.044

0.834

3.363

0.070

1.237

0.269

9.590

0.003

0.008

0.928

Appealing

11.261

0.001

1.475

0.227

3.062

0.083

7.497

0.007

0.309

0.580

1.475

0.227

7.724

0.007

Comforted

9.215

0.003

2.211

0.140

0.864

0.355

0.061

0.805

0.649

0.423

2.399

0.125

0.983

0.324

Curious

49.661

< 0.001

135.015

< 0.001

1.809

0.182

0.289

0.592

0.350

0.555

10.073

0.002

0.000

1.000

Different

30.852

< 0.001

1.364

0.246

2.279

0.134

1.500

0.224

1.364

0.246

5.590

0.020

0.884

0.350

Easy

7.733

0.007

0.402

0.527

0.688

0.409

0.193

0.662

0.402

0.527

5.258

0.024

2.002

0.160

Friendly

123.251

< 0.001

0.000

1.000

13.826

< 0.001

0.011

0.916

0.138

0.711

2.212

0.140

0.341

0.560

Glad

8.777

0.004

0.528

0.469

2.450

0.121

7.502

0.007

0.378

0.540

0.612

0.436

7.199

0.009

Good

0.011

0.916

29.183

< 0.001

0.550

0.460

3.055

0.084

0.137

0.712

5.186

0.025

0.045

0.833

Happy

15.053

< 0.001

12.827

0.001

5.941

0.017

5.701

0.019

0.633

0.428

26.249

< 0.001

0.121

0.728

Homey

44.712

< 0.001

0.324

0.571

8.926

0.004

0.650

0.422

1.295

0.258

0.324

0.571

1.295

0.258

Interested

4.121

0.045

27.857

< 0.001

1.030

0.313

0.237

0.627

0.059

0.808

11.356

0.001

0.015

0.903

Nostalgic

285.001

< 0.001

0.045

0.833

14.030

< 0.001

8.728

0.004

2.850

0.095

0.003

0.958

2.675

0.105

Satisfied

1.707

0.194

29.441

< 0.001

0.000

0.982

8.162

0.005

1.083

0.301

0.358

0.551

1.484

0.226

Secure

30.297

< 0.001

0.135

0.714

4.246

0.042

0.230

0.632

2.965

0.088

0.007

0.933

1.613

0.207

Strange

29.435

< 0.001

8.097

0.005

0.071

0.791

0.071

0.791

0.416

0.520

10.895

0.001

0.761

0.385

Tempting

0.373

0.543

2.765

0.100

1.340

0.250

3.998

0.048

1.872

0.174

6.273

0.014

1.244

0.267

Trust

8.056

0.006

2.397

0.125

5.393

0.022

1.203

0.276

2.201

0.141

0.504

0.480

0.266

0.607

Unique

38.023

< 0.001

2.351

0.128

3.458

0.066

0.384

0.537

2.769

0.099

0.308

0.580

1.159

0.284

Warm

25.089

< 0.001

5.091

0.026

7.828

0.006

0.130

0.719

3.423

0.067

0.521

0.472

0.588

0.445

Worried

17.118

< 0.001

2.155

0.145

2.155

0.145

2.155

0.145

1.237

0.269

0.239

0.626

5.560

0.020

  1. ap-value smaller than 0.05 were highlighted in bold
  2. bS × T × C, three way interaction between sample, tasting and context

Appendix 2: F-values and p-values associated with effects of sample, tasting, context and interactions between three factors on emotion RATA test by Korean consumer

 

Sample

Tasting

Context

Sample × context

Tasting × context

Sample × tasting

S × T × Cb

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

F-value

p-value

Adventurous

106.892

< 0.0011)

57.986

< 0.001

0.245

0.622

11.594

0.001

3.223

0.076

10.364

0.002

0.552

0.460

Affectionate

99.140

< 0.001

0.366

0.547

9.832

0.002

1.092

0.299

0.148

0.701

29.659

< 0.001

1.891

0.173

Appealing

43.961

< 0.001

0.221

0.640

17.011

< 0.001

8.548

0.004

2.137

0.148

71.531

< 0.001

1.704

0.195

Comforted

12.954

0.001

0.060

0.807

0.167

0.684

19.511

< 0.001

2.415

0.124

16.727

< 0.001

6.022

0.016

Curious

120.585

< 0.001

80.059

< 0.001

0.273

0.602

23.255

< 0.001

1.350

0.249

21.605

< 0.001

3.457

0.067

Different

167.797

< 0.001

27.118

< 0.001

2.441

0.122

32.071

< 0.001

2.051

0.156

19.021

< 0.001

11.021

0.001

Easy

4.249

0.042

30.303

< 0.001

0.029

0.866

33.592

< 0.001

0.212

0.646

26.182

< 0.001

4.249

0.042

Friendly

93.300

< 0.001

21.666

< 0.001

0.887

0.349

78.358

< 0.001

2.694

0.105

70.922

< 0.001

10.952

0.001

Glad

170.051

< 0.001

1.449

0.232

1.006

0.319

19.480

< 0.001

0.040

0.841

33.849

< 0.001

1.145

0.288

Good

72.790

< 0.001

3.320

0.072

28.011

< 0.001

3.320

0.072

4.705

0.033

100.713

< 0.001

2.350

0.129

Happy

58.092

< 0.001

0.489

0.486

16.107

< 0.001

1.856

0.177

0.066

0.797

32.571

< 0.001

2.507

0.117

Homey

84.804

< 0.001

0.346

0.558

2.370

0.128

47.799

< 0.001

9.653

0.003

22.377

< 0.001

21.850

< 0.001

Interested

17.000

< 0.001

35.703

< 0.001

8.599

0.004

5.360

0.023

0.109

0.742

4.387

0.039

8.343

0.005

Nostalgic

145.043

< 0.001

2.366

0.128

27.985

< 0.001

66.284

< 0.001

13.244

< 0.001

16.724

< 0.001

16.724

< 0.001

Satisfied

29.870

< 0.001

62.802

< 0.001

21.076

< 0.001

1.721

0.193

4.543

0.036

83.305

< 0.001

5.021

0.028

Secure

34.910

< 0.001

1.700

0.196

6.095

0.016

32.337

< 0.001

1.293

0.259

11.266

0.001

5.048

0.027

Strange

166.872

< 0.001

80.175

< 0.001

34.101

< 0.001

46.657

< 0.001

10.833

0.001

101.739

< 0.001

19.571

< 0.001

Tempting

32.584

< 0.001

0.520

0.473

33.971

< 0.001

2.441

0.122

1.592

0.211

44.484

< 0.001

0.708

0.403

Trust

114.107

< 0.001

1.063

0.306

4.084

0.047

58.218

< 0.001

14.712

< 0.001

29.191

< 0.001

9.065

0.003

Unique

71.456

< 0.001

15.048

< 0.001

4.841

0.031

15.048

< 0.001

3.017

0.086

9.064

0.003

2.444

0.122

Warm

26.821

< 0.001

53.127

< 0.001

0.691

0.408

31.657

< 0.001

1.803

0.183

40.066

< 0.001

7.914

0.006

Worried

18.212

< 0.001

37.595

< 0.001

12.129

0.001

32.937

< 0.001

2.312

0.132

34.073

< 0.001

4.872

0.030

  1. ap-value smaller than 0.05 were highlighted in bold
  2. bS × T × C, three way interaction between sample, tasting and context

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, SH., Hong, JH. The effects of contexts on consumer emotions and acceptance of a domestic food and an unfamiliar ethnic food: a cross-cultural comparison between Chinese and Korean consumers. Food Sci Biotechnol 29, 1705–1718 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-020-00827-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-020-00827-2

Keywords

Navigation