EMPIRICAL STUDIES RELATED TO TFQ MODEL

This dimension comprises both the sensory food quality dimension of Steenkamp, Wierenga,
and Meulenberg (1986) and the taste and appearance food dimension of Grunert et al. (1996).
The philosophy of hedonism argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that the main
goal of the human existence is to maximize the pleasure. The hedonic quality dimension of food
include appearance, smell, and taste. Taste is one of the major criteria for evaluating food
products. Researchers claim that taste and pleasure are some of the most important predictors of
food choice (Roininen, Lhteenmki, & Tuorila, 1999).
In order to make food choice the consumer has to have expectations about the hedonic quality
of a food product. This is so, because the hedonic quality is an experience aspect of food and
taste especially can only be ascertained after eating.
Expectations can be formed on the base of available cues or information at the time of
purchase (Olson & Jacoby, 1972). For example, price, packaging, purchasing surroundings and
others are all cues that help consumers form expectations of taste. Or expectations can be based
on previous experience with the product or if the product is branded and the brand is known.
The following section will look at the formation of quality expectations in regard to the
hedonic dimension and how expectations are related to experience. The presented studies look
into how consumers use intrinsic and extrinsic quality cues in order to form expected quality
about a food product. One thing is clear in the food domain that quality dimensions and applied
quality cues are idiosyncratic to the product category investigated.
In order to make purchase decisions, consumers have to form quality expectations. They infer
quality through the use of cues. Expectations influence the hedonic evaluations of stimuli by
producing either contrast or assimilation (Zellner, Strickhouser, & Tornow, 2004). Contrast is the
shift in hedonic ratings of the stimulus in the direction counter to the expectation. Assimilation is
the shift in hedonic ratings of the stimulus in the direction of the expectation. Depending on a
number of factors including the strength and certainty of the participants expectations and the
social pressures that are present in the experimental setting, the participant will either experience
contrast or assimilation when rating the quality of food.
Researchers have concluded that consumers choose meat based on intrinsic experience and
search attributes like tenderness, leanness, juiciness, freshness, and the anticipated taste and

nutritional value, which are inferred from the visual appearance of a particular cut of meat
(Krystallis, Chryssochoidis, & Scholderer, 2007). The most important factors contributing to the
way consumers perceive quality at the point of purchase according to the appearance of the meat
are color, visible fat (Trijp & Steenkamp, 1996), and marbling (Bredahl, Grunert, & Fertin,
1998). Appearance of the product, however, does not bias the eating satisfaction. In particular,
color and packaging does not affect taste experience (Carpenter, Cornforth, & Whittier, 2001).
Visual intrinsic quality cues are of great importance to some consumers and they can have a
role similar to that of quality certification. When combined with the choice of particular retail
channels and the established personal relationship with the butcher, they can assist in decreasing
the risk in the purchasing decision (Krystallis, Chryssochoidis, & Scholderer, 2007).
Perceived fat and the place of purchase (butcher or supermarket) are identified as crucial
quality cues, and particularly butcher is the preferred product characteristic for beef meat
(Grunert, 1997). Fat is generally regarded as a sign of poor quality. In the same time, consumers
indicate tenderness, taste and juiciness to be one of the important quality dimensions when
evaluating beef. A certain degree of marbling, however, contributes to these quality
characteristics. This indicates that consumers have considerable difficulty in forming quality
expectations in a way that is predictive of later quality experience. This conclusion is also
relevant to the studies conducted by Bruns et al., (2005), Bredahl, Grunert, and Fertin (1998),
Baadsgaard et al. (1993), and Grunert, (2001). Fat does not predict the quality aspects the
consumer is interested in, although it is the major cue used to infer quality of meat. When they
expect good quality, bad quality will result, and vice versa.