Accepted Manuscript

Short Communication

Does taste sensitivity matter? The effect of coffee sensory tasting information
and taste sensitivity on consumer preferences

Jie Li, Nadia A. Streletskaya, Miguel I. Gómez

PII: S0950-3293(18)30287-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.08.006
Reference: FQAP 3555

To appear in: Food Quality and Preference

Received Date: 11 April 2018

Revised Date: 5 July 2018
Accepted Date: 6 August 2018

Please cite this article as: Li, J., Streletskaya, N.A., Gómez, M.I., Does taste sensitivity matter? The effect of coffee
sensory tasting information and taste sensitivity on consumer preferences, Food Quality and Preference (2018),
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.08.006

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Does taste sensitivity matter? The effect of coffee sensory tasting information and taste
sensitivity on consumer preferences

Jie Li‫٭‬

Research Associate

Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 14853

403 Warren Hall

607-280-8926

[email protected]

Nadia A. Streletskaya
Assistant Professor
Applied Economics Department

Oregon State University

307E, Ballard Extension Hall
2591 SW Campus Way

Corvallis, OR 97331
541-737-9285

[email protected]

Miguel I. Gómez
Associate Professor
Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management

Cornell University

340D Warren Hall

Ithaca, NY 14853

607-255-8159

[email protected]
‫٭‬Corresponding author

Abstract

Product sensory information, an external cue, could greatly influence consumer enjoyment of
hedonic products like coffee. The question is what type of sensory information, subjective (e.g.,
aroma, flavor and body) or objective (e.g., origin, varieties and production practices), has a
higher impact on consumer product experience accounting for heterogeneous taste sensitivity.
We examine this question using a between-subject experiment where participants were either
given subjective, objective or no sensory information of a specialty coffee. Participants were
classified as either supertasters or other tasters using the 6−n-propylthiouracil (PROP) paper
strip. The results indicate that, compared to objective sensory information and no information,
subjective sensory information results in a higher taste rating and a higher preference level for
the coffee. More importantly, subjective information positively influences PROP supertasters’
purchase likelihood for coffee, without necessarily affecting their bitterness perception of the
coffee tasted.

Keywords: Coffee preference, PROP test, Supertasters, Sensory information, Subjective

information, Objective information, External cues.

1
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors. The authors thank Colleen Anunu, director at specialty coffee
association, for providing the coffee and sensory tasting notes used in this experiment

2
1. Introduction
1.1. Product sensory tasting information
Marketers of hedonic products have great interest in helping consumers learn about product
attributes, with the purpose of increasing sales. As a result, marketers attempt to build
connections with consumers through a variety of marketing communication strategies. Among
all sources of marketing communications, product sensory tasting information and printed tasting
descriptions are the most common strategies used for promoting products. Product price is
generally the first attribute noticed by would-be buyers, with tasting descriptions of hedonic
products often noticed next. These descriptions could help consumers choose products best
matching their preferences. Additionally, these descriptions could go beyond advertising slogans
and labels, and serve the purpose of educating consumers, so that they remember the products
favorably (LaTour, LaTour, & Feinstein, 2011). Overall, extensive research has shown that
product tasting information has substantial impact on consumer judgments of food and beverage
products (see Li, Jervis and Drake 2015 for an extensive literature review).

Tasting descriptors broadly consists of subjective and objective information. Objective

information consists of such product attributes as type, origin, variety, and production process.
Subjective information, on the other hand, consists of sensory descriptions including smell, taste,
body and food-paring choices. Bender (2008) claims that subjective information delivers
metaphorical descriptions of aesthetic properties of a product to consumers who may not be
familiar with scientific or production specific terminology (e.g. coffee, wine). Subjective
information includes product expert opinions that are passed on to less experienced consumers.
Dilworth (2008) claims that subjective descriptors are akin to recreational art with highly
individualistic improvisatory elements. Conversely, objective descriptors are more precise, with
lower personal and emotional involvement. They focus more on conceptual knowledge, and can
serve as an educational tool for consumers. LaTour, LaTour, & Feinstein (2011) suggest that
teaching consumers about production practices, varietal and terroir characteristics, as compared
to relying solely on subjective sensory communications, could improve consumer knowledge and
ability to judge the quality of the product.

1.2. PROP taste status

From a sensory perspective, researchers maintain that taste physiology, an inherited trait,
significantly influences consumer tastes and preferences for food and beverages (see Hayes and
Keast 2011 for an extensive literature review). Past research has shown that responsiveness to a
bitter compound 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) varies due to individual genetic variation. About
25% of the population are ultrasensitive to bitterness, and are labeled as supertasters (Bartoshuk,
1991; Bender, 2008), while other consumers experience PROP as less bitter or not bitter at all.

Most researchers evaluate taste sensitivity through the PROP paper strip test (Zhao,
Kirkmeyer and Tepper, 2003; Bartoshuk et al., 2003). Supertasters find the PROP paper strip
intensively bitter, while other tasters find it mild bitterness or nothing. PROP supertasters are
likely to dislike dark chocolate, chili peppers (Catanzaro, Chesbro, & Velkey, 2013) and bitter
vegetables like brussel sprouts, spinach, and broccoli (Kaminski, Herderson, & Drewnowski,
2000). In Addition, they tend to consume alcoholic beverage less frequently than other tasters
(Duffy, Peterson, & Bartoshuk, 2004; Hanni, 2013). PROP supertasters tend to dislike black
coffee (Glanville and Kaplan, 1965) and are often associated with lower preference for and lower
consumption of caffeine (Ly and Drewnowski, 2001).

3
 Although these physiological differences among consumers are of interest to food and
beverage businesses who can segment the market based on different consumer taste sensitivity
(Pickering and Cullen, 2008), little has been done to examine how individual taste sensitivity
interacts with marketing communications. It is unknown whether consumers with differing taste
sensitivity process sensory information in a similar manner, and whether specific sensory
information have a higher impact on supertasters compared to other consumers. Understanding
these relationships would help marketers develop and test new products effectively, provide a
superior customer experience, and tailor marketing communication strategies to different
consumer segments.

To examine the aforementioned questions, we focus on coffee and use a between-subjects

experiment where participants were randomly given either subjective, objective or no tasting
information. Two ways to classify consumers are present in the current literature. Some
researchers prefer to have three categories of consumers (supertasters, tasters and non-tasters),
while a very recent study focuses on identifying behavioral differences between supertasters and
other consumers. Given the focus of this study, consumers were classified as supertasters and
other tasters. The results indicate that, compared to objective information and no information,
subjective information about coffee results in a higher taste rating and a higher preference level.
More importantly, the results suggest that sensory information positively influences supertasters’
purchase likelihood for the tasted black coffee, without affecting their bitterness perception.

This research contributes to the literature in two areas. First, existing research has largely
ignored consumer taste sensitivity when studying the influence of product sensory information
on consumer product experience. This paper attempts to fill this gap by accounting for
participant PROP sensitivity. The findings shed light on the impact of taste sensitivity and
different forms of marketing communication strategies on taste perceptions and consumer
demand. Second, similar to wine, buyers and roasters in the coffee industry often use tasting
notes to market their products. To our knowledge, this is the first paper that examines the
influence of coffee sensory information on consumer preferences.

2. Methods
2.1. Participants and design
Ninety-three college students participated in this experiment. The sample was comprised of 66
females and 27 male participants between the ages of 18 and 40, with 90% of participants
between the ages of 18 and 22.

The experimental design consists of three product tasting information groups (i.e.,
subjective, objective, and no information), with participants randomly assigned to each group.
Their taste status (supertasters versus other tasters) was measured using a PROP paper strip. A
three-page survey instrument was used in this experiment and is available upon request. The
coffee used in the experiment was a specialty coffee provided by a roaster of specialty coffee.
Coffee tasting information was presented on the first part of the survey. The second part asked
participants about their taste perceptions and behaviors (e.g., bitterness perception, taste rating
preference level and purchase likelihood). The third part of the survey focused on conducting the
PROP test to classify subjects as supertasters (ST) or other tasters (OT).

2.2. Procedures
At the start of the experiment, each participant was given an envelope with a random subject ID
4
and a consent form. Next, participants were randomly assigned into one of three groups: the
control group (no sensory information), the subjective sensory information group, or the
objective sensory tasting information group. The tasting notes used for the two sensory tasting
information treatments are described in the following:

Subjective tasting notes: Aroma: intense blackberry and raspberry.

Taste: guava, cherry, starfruit, watermelon.
Body: slick, heavy, and round, syrupy.
Finish: jasmine tea sweetened with honey
Score: 89 points over 100 using the Specialty Coffee Association of America’s cupping form.

Objective tasting notes: Las Peñitas is a 2-hectare farm in the micro-region of El Cielito in Santa
Bárbara, Honduras. On his farm, Jorge Benitez grows only Pacas variety which is fully washed
and then sun-dried on raised beds. This lot was harvested in the spring of 2013, and it is then
roasted to accentuate the natural acidities found in the coffee.

As participants were seated, they were guided to read the product information on the first
page of the survey. Next, they read the instructions on how to taste the black coffee and then
sampled it. The coffee was brewed right before the experiment and then transferred to a
commercial coffee dispenser. A professional coffee maker used 135 grams of this ground coffee
to brew 96 oz. of coffee, which is about 1.68 teaspoons of ground coffee for every 6 ounces of
water. It was served hot without any sugar or cream in a 4 oz. disposable coffee cup. Participants
were provided with water and non-saltine crackers, and were asked to eat a piece of cracker and
drink some water before tasting the coffee.

After the tasting, participants were directed to the second page to fill out the coffee
evaluation survey. The subjects indicated their taste and behavior evaluation of the coffee using a
Likert Scale from 1 (lowest) to 9 (highest). The taste evaluation includes their bitterness rating of
the coffee from 1 (not bitter at all) to 9 (extremely bitter) and their overall taste rating from 1
(not tasty at all) to 9 (very tasty). The behavior evaluation includes their preference level (how
much do you like this coffee) from 1 (very little) to 9 (very much) and their purchase likelihood
from 1 (not very likely) and 9 (definitely).

Finally, participants were directed to perform a PROP paper strip test (see appendix for a
detailed description). Each individual was instructed to put a pre-soaked and dried PROP paper
strip into his/her mouth for 30 seconds or until fully wet. The individual then rated the taste of
intensity level of the paper strip using gLMS (Bartoshuk et al., 2004). This scale ranges from 0 to
100 points, with 0 being barely detectable and 100 being the strongest imaginable sensation of
any kind. The gLMS has 100 units and also includes other descriptors as weak, moderate, strong,
and very strong on the label. A participant who reported her/his score more than 52.5 points
(corresponding to the very strong descriptor on the gLMS) is identified as supertasters, in a
similar way with previous studies (Pickering and Cullen, 2008; Catanzaro, Chesbro, and Velkey,
2013; Pickering, Jain, and Bezawada, 2013 & 2014). Demographic information including gender
and age as well as coffee consumption behavior was collected at the end of the experiment. We
employed the STATA software to conduct an ANOVA analysis to examine the effect of sensory
tasting information and PROP taste status on consumer product evaluations after the coffee
tasting.

5
3. Results
Overall, results of the two-way ANOVA analysis in Table 1 indicate that, as expected,
supertasters have an average higher bitterness rating than other tasters. Subjective sensory
information on coffee aroma, flavor and expert reviews increases participants taste rating and
preference level in comparison to the objective information and no tasting information groups.
Interestingly, subjective sensory information positively influences supertasters’ purchase
likelihood for coffee, a product that they tend not to enjoy, but has no impact on other taster’
purchase likelihood.

3.1. Impact of sensory tasting information on bitterness perception

The ANOVA analysis results on the fourth row of Table 1 indicate that supertasters have an
average higher bitterness rating in comparison to other tasters (MST=6.20, MOT=5.11, F=6.22,
p<0.01). This is consistent with previous research that supertasters in general find black coffee
more bitter than other tasters (Drewnowski, et al.,1999; Masi, et al., 2015).

The results also indicate that consumers’ bitterness perception of coffee does not
significantly vary across three groups (F=0.74, p>0.1). However, the post-hoc pairwise
comparison results in Figure 1 show that the sensory information interacts with the PROP status:
only other tasters report a lower bitterness rating when presented with subjective, rather than
objective tasting information (MOT_sub=4.45, MOT_obj=5.54, t=-1.74, p<0.1). This result make
sense, as other tasters tend to have lower taste sensitivity to bitterness, and as a result their
perception for bitterness are likely to be influenced by external tasting cues.

3.2 The impact of sensory tasting information on taste perception

The results on the fifth row of Table 1 show that sensory information influences participants’
taste perception (F=5.2, p<0.01). Subjective sensory information that focuses on aroma, flavor,
and expert reviews increases participants’ taste rating in comparison with objective sensory
information (Msub=5.40, Mobj=4.00, t=2.93, p<0.01) and with no information (Msub=5.40,
Mcontrol=4.00, t=2.34, p<0.05).

The post-hoc pairwise comparison results in Figure 2 show that subjective sensory
information increases supertasters’ taste perception compared to objective sensory information
(MST_sub=5.23, MST_obj=3.44, t=2.32, p<0.05) and no information (MST_sub=5.23, MST_control=3.40,
t=1.68, p<0.1). The results suggest that subjective sensory information improves supertasters’
taste perception of black coffee, a product that they tend to perceive as extremely bitter and that
they usually not enjoy. For other tasters, subjective sensory information also improves their taste
perception compared to objective sensory information (MOT_sub=5.50, MOT_obj=4.38, t=1.84,
p<0.1) and no information (MOT_sub=5.50, MOT_control=4.23, t=1.75, p<0.1).

3.3 The impact of sensory tasting information on preference level

The results on the seventh row of Table 1 show that sensory information affects participants’
preference level for the coffee (F=4.64, p<0.05). Participants’ preference levels in the subjective
group is significantly higher than in the objective group (Msub=4.71, Mobj=3.18, t=2.96, p<0.01),
and higher than those in control group (Msub=4.71, Mcontrol=3.17, t=2.38, p<0.05).

The pairwise comparison results in Figure 3 indicate that other tasters in the subjective
treatment group rate their preference 50% higher than in the control group (MOT_sub=4.95,
MOT_control=3.31, t=2.08, p<0.05), and 56% high than in the objective treatment group
6
(MOT_sub=4.95, MOT_obj=3.42, t=2.30, p<0.05). For supertasters, subjective information improves
the average preference rating by 53% compared to objective tasting information (MST_sub=4.31,
MST_obj=2.81, t=1.77, p<0.1).

3.4 The impact of sensory tasting information on purchase likelihood

The two-way ANOVA results on the eighth row of Table 1 indicate that sensory information
affects purchase likelihood for the tasted black coffee (F=3.83, p<0.05). Participants’ purchase
likelihood in subjective group is significantly higher than in objective group (Msub=3.94,
Mobj=2.90, t=2.13, p<0.05), and higher than those in control group (Msub=3.94, Mcontrol=2.67,
t=2.08, p<0.05), suggesting that subjective information increases participants’ purchase
likelihood for black coffee compared with objective information and no information.

This seems to be driven mostly by supertasters’ reaction to the sensory information

treatment as indicated in Figure 4. Among supertasters, subjective sensory information increases
their purchase likelihood for the tasted black coffee by 54% relative to objective sensory
information (MST_sub=4.15, MST_obj=2.69, t=1.83, p<0.1) and by 88% relative to the no
information group (MST_sub=4.15, MST_control=2.2, t=1.73, p<0.1). Other tasters’ purchase
likelihood is not significantly influenced by the sensory information. This result highlights the
potential for subjective information to change supertasters’ behavioral intentions without
necessarily affecting bitterness perception, and to change other tasters bitterness perception
without affecting their purchase intention (as for less sensitive people, bitterness is not
unpleasant and probably does not have a strong impact on purchase intention).

4. Summary and conclusions

This study investigated how different types of sensory tasting information influences coffee
evaluations among consumers with different PROP taste sensitivities. The results indicate that
subjective tasting information on aroma, flavor, and expert review scores enhances consumer
taste perception and preferences for black coffee independent of the PROP status of consumers.
More importantly, the results suggest that sensory information positively influences supertasters’
purchase likelihood for black coffee, a product that supertasters tend not to enjoy and to consume
less.

Results also show that PROP taste sensitivity influences consumer bitterness perception
for coffee, in line with previous research. Supertasters’ bitterness rating is not influenced by the
sensory information, while the other tasters’ is. However, sensory information does improve the
taste evaluation of the coffee and in turn the preference level as well as the purchase likelihood
for supertasters. That is, sensory information does not change the way they perceive bitterness in
black coffee, but it does positively influence marketing outcomes for the supertaster segment of
consumers.

These findings show that an exclusive focus on taste status does not explain all the
variation in consumer hedonic preferences for complex beverages such as coffee. Exogenous
factors such as product sensory information, subjective sensory information in particular, and
favorable descriptions have impact on how much consumers with both high and low PROP
sensitivity like the product. In particular, the absence of PROP status information might bias our
understanding of purchase intentions for different consumer segments when different
information is available to consumers, and undermine the success of marketing efforts.

7
 This study focused on one particular hedonic product, coffee, that is often unpopular
among supertasters. To deepen our understanding of how different types of sensory information
impact preferences of consumers with different levels of PROP sensitivity, future research could
focus on identifying differences between non-tasters, medium tasters and supertasters. While this
research used coffee as a focal product, further researcher can consider food/beverage products
that are commonly consumed by supertasters. Finally, the results indicate that subjective sensory
descriptors enhance consumer taste evaluation. Further research is therefore needed to study
what moderates the impact of subjective information on consumer preferences.

Table 1. Two-way ANOVA of sensory information and taste status on coffee evaluations
Subjective Control
Dependent Objective group F-stats
group group
Variables OT ST OT ST OT ST Tasting Taste Interaction
(n=24) (n=16) (n=22) (n=13) (n=12) (n=6) information status term
Taste Expectation
5.54 5.81 4.45 6.38 5.46 7.00
Bitterness 0.74 6.22*** 1.41
(1.96) (2.01) (2.07) (1.87) (2.88) (1.58)
4.38 3.44 5.5 5.23 4.23 3.40
Taste 5.2*** 1.92 0.24
(2.20) (2.19) (1.97) (1.79) (2.20) (1.67)
Behavior Expectation
Preference 3.42 2.81 4.95 4.31 3.31 2.80
4.64** 1.20 0.00
level (2.06) (2.10) (2.55) (2.53) (2.17) (1.64)
Purchase 3.04 2.69 3.82 4.15 2.85 2.20
3.83** 0.19 0.35
likelihood (2.22) (1.99) (2.04) (2.54) (1.54) (1.3)
Note: OT represents other tasters, ST represents supertasters; * = statistically significant at 0.10 level (10%), ** = statistically significant at 0.05
level (5%), *** = statistically significant at 0.01 level (1%). Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses

Figure 1: The impact of taste status and tasting information on bitterness perception
9
8
Bitterness Peception

7
7
6 6.38
5 5.46 5.81
5.54 Other tasters
4 4.45
Supertasters
3
2
1
Control group Objective information Subjective information
treatment treatment

Note: The error bars indicate the standard error of the mean in each group, and the same for Figure 2, 3 and 4

Figure 2: The impact of taste status and tasting information on taste rating

8
 6

5.5
Taste Rating 5 5.23

4 4.34 4.38
Other tasters
3 3.4 3.44
Supertasters
2

1
Control group Objective information Subjective information
treatment treatment

Figure 3: The impact of taste status and tasting information on preference level
6

5
4.95
Preference Level

4 4.31
3.42 Other tasters
3 3.31
2.8 2.81 Supertasters
2

1
Control group Objective information Subjective information
treatment treatment

Figure 4: The impact of taste status and tasting information on purchase likelihood
6
Purchase Likelihood

4
4.15
3.82 Other tasters
3
3.04 Supertasters
2.85 2.69
2 2.2

1
Control group Objective information Subjective information
treatment treatment

References
Bartoshuk, L. M. (1991). Sweetness. History, preference, and genetic variability. Food
9
 Technology, 45 (11). 108, 110, 112–113.
Bartoshuk L. M., Duffy, V. B., & Green, B. G. (2004). Valid across-group comparisons with
labeled scales: the gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiology and Behavior. 82
(1):109–114.
Bender, J. W. (2008). What the wine critic tells us. In F. Allhoff (Eds). Wine and Philosophy (pp.
125-136). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Catanzaro, D., Chesbro, E. C., & Velkey, A. J. (2013). Relationship between food preference and
PROP taste status of college students. Appetite, 68, 124-131.
Duffy, V. B., Peterson, J. M., & Bartoshuk, L. M. 2004. Associations between taste genetics, oral
sensation and alcohol intake. Physiology & Behavior, 82(2-3): 435-445.
Dilworth, J. (2008). Mmmm...not Aha! Imaginative vs. analytical experiences of wine. In F.
Allhoff (Eds). Wine and Philosophy (pp. 81-94). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Drewnowski, A., Henderson, S., Levine, A., & Hann, C. (1999). Taste and food preferences as
predictors of dietary practices in young women. Public Health Nutrition, 2(4), 513-519.
Glanville, E.V., & Kaplan, A. R. (1965). Food preference and sensitivity of taste for bitter
compounds. Nature, 2005, 851-853
Hanni, T. 2013. Why You Like the Wines You Like: Changing the way the world thinks about
wine. The New Wine Fundamentals. 1st edition. New Wine Fundamentals.
Hayes, J. E., & Keast, R. S. J. (2011). Two decades of supertasting: where do we stand?
Physiology & behavior, 104 (5): 1072-1074.
Kaminski, L. C., Henderson, S. A., & Drewnowski, A. (2000). Young women's food preferences
and taste responsiveness to 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP). Physiology & Behavior, 68 (5):
691-697.
Masi, C. Dinnella, C., Monteleone, E., & Prescott, J. (2015). The impact of individual variations
in taste sensitivity on coffee perceptions and preferences, Physiology & Behavior, 138,
219-226
LaTour, K. A., LaTour, M. S. & Feinstein, A. H. (2011). The effects of perceptual and
conceptual training on novice wine drinkers' development. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
52 (4): 445-457.
LaTour, K. A., LaTour, M. S. and Wansink, B. (2018). The Impact of Supertasters on Taste Test
and Marketing Outcomes. Journal of Advertising Research, 58 (2), 240-254.
Li X., Jervis, S. M., & Drake, M. A. (2015). Examining intrinsic factors that influence product
acceptance: a review. Journal of Food Science, 80: 901–909.
Ly, A., & Drewnowski, A. (2001). PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil) tasting and sensory responses to
caffeine, sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone and chocolate. Chemical Senses, 26 (1),
41–47.
Pickering, G.J., & Cullen, C.W. (2008). The influence of taste sensitivity and adventurousness
on generation Y’s liking scores for sparkling wine. In Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research, Siena, Italy, July
17–19, 2008 (CD).
Pickering, G. J., A. K. Jain, and R. Bezawada. 2013. Super-tasting gastronomes? Taste
phenotype characterization of foodies and wine experts. Food Quality and Preference,
28:85–91.
Pickering, G. J., A. K. Jain, and R. Bezawada. 2014. Segmentation and drivers of wine liking and
consumption in US wine consumers. International Journal of Wine Research, 6:1–11.
Zhao, L., Kirkmeyer, S. V., and Tepper, B. J. (2003). A paper screening test to assess genetic
taste sensitivity to 6-n-Propylthiouracil. Physiology & Behavior, 78 (4–5): 625-633.

10
Appendix: PROP paper strip test instruction
In the paper plate, there is a cup of water and a paper strip. After you get the paper strip, please
READ the instruction first:

Step 1: Take a sip of water and swish it around your mouth to clean it
Step 2: Take the paper strip and place it on your tongue for 30 seconds or until it fully wet
Step 3: Please rate the intensity of the taste of the paper strip by drawing an arrow on the right
graph. You can put a mark on any place on the scale, not just near the words. The top of
scale is the strongest sensation of any kind; include pain, that you can imagine
experiencing.”(The arrow on the left graph shows an example)

11
 Does taste sensitivity matter? The effect of coffee sensory tasting information and taste
sensitivity on consumer preferences

Highlight
 Sensory tasting information has a great impact on consumer coffee experiences.
 Subjective sensory information that focuses on flavor, aroma and body has a higher
impact on taste rating score and preference level for the tasted black coffee in comparison
with objective sensory information (e.g., origin, variety and production practices) and no
information.
 In general, PROP supertasters have a higher bitterness rating score than other consumers.
 Subjective information positively influences PROP supertasters’ purchase likelihood for
the tasted black coffee, without necessarily affecting their bitterness perception of the
coffee.

12