Investigating the relative merits of using a mixed reality context for measuring affective response and predicting tea break snack choice

Sensory evaluation for the investigation of food consumption is often conducted in a controlled laboratory environment, which does not reflect consumption behaviour in real world. Here, we compared the effect of consumption setting (traditional sensory booth, mixed reality projection cafe ', and a cafe ') on consumer affective responses, and to investigate the effectiveness of using Microsoft HoloLens technology, an Augmented Mixed Reality device, as an ecologically valid alternative to natural consumption eating for sensory evaluation. Participant [(n = 120): 86 females/34 males, aged 18-65 years] affective response (overall liking, attribute liking, emotional response, and snack choice) towards two commercially available tea break snacks (caramel slice and chocolate digestive biscuit) was assessed in three different consumption settings using a balanced crossover design. There were no significant differences for most affective ratings between data obtained from the HoloLens evoked cafe ' and real cafe ' (p >= 0.10), suggesting that mixed reality could provide an ecologically valid context for consumer research. However, response differences were observed between these two contexts and the sensory booths. For example, interested, joy, enthusiastic emotion terms were rated slightly higher in the evoked cafe ' in comparison to the booth context and slightly higher emotional engagement was observed for joy in the cafe ' compared to the booths (all p < .10). This study highlights key considerations for deciding where consumer testing should be conducted and the importance of using a combination of overall liking, attribute liking and emotional response to obtain data representative of real-world environments in consumer studies.

Automated summary

This study compared the effects of different consumption settings on consumer affective responses, indicating that mixed reality environments may provide a more ecologically valid context for sensory evaluation. However, differences in emotional responses need to be considered when deciding where to conduct consumer testing.