Can the way in which an ice cream flavour is described influence what it tastes like and even how much we like it?
In this first post of 2023, I'm going to examine whether the way in which food is described or labelled can influence what it tastes like and even how much we like it. I will then argue that by simply changing the name or description of an ice cream flavour, we can change not only what it tastes like, but also how much it is liked. Finally, I will discuss the implications of this research for both commercial ice cream producers and domestic cooks. As always, one of the joys of blogging is the collaborative process of co-creation so do feel free to get in touch with ideas or questions.
Key Points
Using evocative, descriptive names such as ‘Single-Origin Fine Ecuadorian Chocolate’ versus 'Chocolate’, and 'Grade-A Madagascan Vanilla Bean’ versus ‘Vanilla’, when naming ice cream flavours will likely significantly increase how much they are liked by consumers. Just make sure that the actual quality of your ice cream matches the fancy description.
Naming or describing chocolate ice cream as ‘dark' chocolate, rather than ‘milk' chocolate, will likely make it taste significantly more chocolaty.
You might also like to read:
1. What food tastes like
Interestingly, the way in which food is described or labelled can influence what it tastes like. In a study by Wansink et al. (2000)1, researchers found that participants who ate nutrition bars that were falsely described as containing ‘soy protein’ (all of the nutrition bars in the study did not contain any soy protein) on the package described them as tasting more grainy, less flavourful, and as having a strong aftertaste compared to identical nutrition bars that did not have ‘soy’ on the package. Similarly, Shankar et al. (2009)2 found that people rated M&Ms labeled as ‘dark’ as tasting significantly more chocolatey than those labeled as ‘milk’ chocolate, suggesting that just a single word is needed to modify people’s judgements of taste.
2. How much we like it
Many studies have shown that the way in which food is described or labelled can significantly influence how much we like it. In what has become the classic study on descriptive food naming, Wansink et al. (2005) 3 found that people who ate savoury foods that had been given an evocative, descriptive name, e.g. ‘Succulent Italian Seafood Filet’, actually generated double the number of positive comments about the food and rated it more appealing, tasty, and caloric compared to those who ate regularly-named counterparts, e.g. ‘Seafood Filet’. Similarly, Yeomans et al. (2001) 4 found that labelling a tomato soup with a name that implied a higher quality (e.g. ‘Gastronome’s Connoisseur’s Choice Cream of Tomato’ versus ‘McTaggart’s Lean and Low Tomato’) resulted in significantly higher hedonic (how much we like the experience) ratings for the same soup.
In a study by Lee et al. (2006) 5 , people drinking in a university campus bar were asked to taste two beers: a regular beer and ‘MIT Brew’, which was actually regular Budweiser plus a few drops of balsamic vinegar, and then to indicate which beer they preferred. The majority (59%) of drinkers in a group that were not provided with any information about the modified beer other than its name preferred the 'MIT brew’ over the regular beer.
Okamoto et al. (2009) 6 found that participants who tasted various solutions made to stimulate the basic tastes (sour, bitter, sweet, and salty) liked them significantly more when they were given food names such as ‘lemon’, ‘coffee jelly’, ‘caramel candy’, and ‘consommé soup’ than when these solutions were identified with random numbers, especially when the names and tastes were perceived as being congruent.
Parker and Penfield (2005) 7 used four different commercial vanilla-flavoured ice creams to determine whether labelling the vanilla type affected consumer perception. One ice cream contained natural vanilla, one contained artificial vanilla, and the other two contained a mixture of natural and artificial flavourings. The researchers found that the vanilla ice cream containing natural vanilla was liked more when it was labelled ‘natural’ compared to when the same ice cream was not labelled. The researchers also found that the artificially flavoured ice cream was liked less when labelled ‘artificial’ compared to when the same ice cream was not labelled.
3. The creation of expectations
Shankar et al. (2009)2 argue that the most likely explanation for the impact that food labelling and description has on hedonic and sensory responses to foods is through the creation of expectations. Whenever we eat or drink, our brain uses past experiences with the food or drink in front of us (known as top-down processing), as well as its visual appearance, smell, sound, touch, description, and label (bottom-up processes) to set up powerful expectations about its taste/flavour (sensory-based expectations) and about how much we are going to like it (hedonic-based expectations)8. When we then consume the food or drink, our expectations will either be confirmed or disconfirmed.
3.1 Confirmed expectations
If the actual taste/flavour meets or exceeds expectations (known as confirmed expectations), we will likely enjoy the experience.
3.2 Disconfirmed expectations
If, however, the discrepancy between what we expect and what we actually taste is too great, then a disconfirmation of expectation response is likely. This disconfirmation can be either positive (product characteristics are better than expected, resulting in surprise or delight) or negative (product characteristics are worse than expected, resulting in surprise and disgust)9 10.
Heston Blumenthal, owner of the three Michelin-starred restaurant The Fat Duck, and his colleagues illustrated this disconfirmation of expectation response beautifully by serving a savoury smoked-salmon ice cream that looked like sweet strawberry. The researchers found that the rated pleasantness was highly dependent on the label presented when the food was served: the label ‘ice cream’ resulted in far lower pleasantness ratings than did the label ‘frozen savoury mousse’. The ‘ice cream’ label generated a strong expectation of a sweet, fruity flavour, and the surprise of a strong, salty fish-flavoured food resulted in a strong disconfirmation of expectation response and, consequently, very low pleasantness ratings11.
3.2.1 The four main theories that account for the effects of disconfirmed expectations
There are four main theories that have been put forward to account for the effects of disconfirmed expectation: (1) assimilation, (2) contrast, (3) generalised negativity, and (4) assimilation/contrast.
3.2.1.1 Assimilation
Assimilation occurs when we adjust our liking to match the expectation, i.e. if the expectation is high, it will cause the product to be perceived as better than its actual attributes would suggest. Conversely, if expectations are lower than the food’s performance, liking will decrease9.
Numerous studies have shown assimilation to be the most commonly observed effect of disconfirmed expectations: the studies by Wansink et al. (2005)3 and Yeomans et al. (2001)4, both discussed above, support the idea of assimilation. Similarly, Lee et al. (2006)5 found that the ‘MIT brew’ beer was liked much less when participants were informed of the secret ingredient (balsamic vinegar) before sampling rather than after. The researchers postulated that the participants reasonably anticipated disliking the vinegar-containing MIT brew and this negative expectation lingered to degrade their subsequent experience.
3.2.1.2 Contrast
Contrast occurs when expectations insufficiently match actual product performance, resulting in dissatisfaction.
3.2.1.3 Generalised negativity
Piqueras-Fizman and Spence (2015)8 state that generalised negativity occurs when a person evaluates a product negatively because of the expectations that they had prior to consumption or tasting were not met, regardless of whether or not the product happens to be perceived as better, or worse, than expected.
3.2.1.4 Assimilation/contrast
According to the assimilation/contrast model, if the difference between what was expected and experienced is small, the difference may not be noted, and so assimilation will likely occur. If, however, the discrepancy is large (the food is very different from the expectations), contrast may occur instead. The assimilation/contrast theory has been used by food science researchers to account for expectations-based effects on the response of consumers to a variety of food and drink products8.
4. What are the implications of this research for ice cream producers?
When naming or describing an ice cream flavour, using an evocative, descriptive name can significantly increase how much we like that flavour. This is because an evocative or descriptive name sets up high expectations about what the ice cream is going to taste like and how much we are going to like it. These high expectations then enhance the perceived flavour of the ice cream and how much we like it, just as long as the difference between expectations and actual experience isn't too great.
If, however, the ice cream producer sets up high expectations through the use of an evocative, descriptive name, it is imperative that the quality of the ice cream matches these high expectations (the actual experience being just a little lower than the expectations is most probably ok). If the difference between the high expectations and the actual experience is too great, the customer, family member, or guest will likely experience a negative disconfirmation of expectations, resulting in a poor experience.
In short, naming your chocolate ice cream 'Single-Origin Fine Ecuadorian Dark Chocolate' in the hopes of boosting how much it will be liked but then using a cheap, bitter cocoa powder instead of fine, floral (and more expensive) cocoa mass most probably isn't going to fly with your customers.
5. Summary
The research discussed in this post clearly shows that our perception of food can be dramatically affected by the way in which it is named or described. Describing a chocolate product as ‘dark’ rather than ‘milk’ can make it taste significantly more chocolaty, and describing a product as containing ‘soy protein’ can make it taste more grainy, less flavourful, as having a strong aftertaste compared to an identical product that does not have the word ‘soy’ on the package. Using an evocative, descriptive name, such as ‘Succulent Italian Seafood Filet’ or ‘Gastronome’s Connoisseur’s Choice Cream of Tomato’ to describe food will significantly increase how much people like it.
The use of evocative and descriptive names or labels set up high expectations about what the food is going to taste like, and about how much we are going to like it. These high expectations cause the food to be perceived as better than it may actually be, just as long as the difference between the expectations and the experience is small. If the difference between the expectations and the experience is high, however, a negative disconfirmation of expectation will occur, resulting in a negative experience.
6. References
1. Wansink, B., Park, S. B., Sonka, S., and Morganosky, M. (2000) 'How soy labelling influences preference and taste', International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3, 85-94.
2. Shankar, M. U., Levitan, C. A., Prescott, J., and Spence, C. (2009) 'The influence of color and label information on flavor perception', Chemosensory Perception, 2, 53-58.
3. Wansink, B, van Ittersum, K., and Painter, J. E. (2005) 'How descriptive food names bias sensory perceptions in restaurants', Food Quality and Preference, 16, 393-400.
4. Yeomans, M. R., Lartamo, S., Procter, E. L., Lee, M. D., and Gray, R. W. (2001) 'The actual, but not labelled, fat content of a soup preload alters short-term appetite in healthy men', Physiology and Behavior, 73, 533-540.
5. Lee, L., Frederick, S., and Ariely, D. (2006) Try It, You’ll Like It: The influence of expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences for beer', Psychological Science, 17, 1054-1058.
6. Okamoto, M., Wada, Y., Yamaguchi, Y., Kimura, A., Dan H., Masuda, T, Singh, A. K., Clowney, L., and Dan, I. (2009) ‘Influences of food-name labels on perceived taste’ Chemical Senses, 34, 187-194.
7. Parker, A. R., and Penfield, M. P. (2005) 'Labelling of vanilla type affects consumer perception of vanilla ice cream', Journal of Food Science, 70, 553-557.
8. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., and Spence, C. (2015) 'Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: an interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts', Food Quality and Preference, 40, 165-179.
9. Cardello, A. V. (2007) 'Measuring consumer expectations to improve food product development', in MacFie, (ed) Consumer-Led Food Product Development. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing, 223–261.
10. Cardello, A. V., and Sawyer, F. M. (1992) 'Effects of disconfirmed consumer expectations on food acceptability', Journal of Sensory Studies, 7.
11. Yeomans, M., Chambers, L., Blumenthal, H. and Blake, A. (2008) ‘The role of expectancy in sensory and hedonic evaluation: The case of smoked salmon ice-cream’, Food Quality and Preference, 19, 565–573.
