4.7 Article

Post-Ingestive Sensations Driving Post-Ingestive Food Pleasure: A Cross-Cultural Consumer Study Comparing Denmark and China

Journal

FOODS
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods9050617

Keywords

cross-cultural; post-ingestive food pleasure; food reward; post-ingestive sensation; satisfaction; china; Denmark

Funding

  1. university partnership Denmark-China, Sino Danish Centre (SDC), within the 'Food and Health Research Theme', Aarhus, Denmark
  2. Aarhus University Graduate School of Science and Technology (GSST), Aarhus, Denmark

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Culture is one of the main factors that influence food assessment. This cross-cultural research aimed to compare Chinese and Danish consumers in their post-ingestive drivers of Post-Ingestive Food Pleasure (PIFP). We define PIFP as a subjective conscious sensation of pleasure and joy experienced after eating. We conducted two in-country consumer studies in Denmark (n = 48) and in China (n = 53), measuring post-ingestive sensations and PIFP using visual analogue scale, for three hours following consumption of a breakfast meal. Key results revealed perceived Satisfaction, Mental, Overall and Physical wellbeing to be highly influential on PIFP in both countries. Moreover, Danish consumers perceived appetite-related sensations such as Satiety, Hunger, Desire-to-eat and In-need-of-food to be influential on PIFP, which was not the case in China. In China, more vitality-related sensations such as Energized, Relaxation and Concentration were found to be drivers of PIFP. These results suggest similarities but also distinct subtleties in the cultural constructs of PIFP in Denmark and in China. Focusing on Food Pleasure as a post-ingestive measure provides valuable output, deeper insights into what drives Food Pleasure, and, importantly, takes us beyond the processes only active during the actual eating event.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available