4.6 Article

Emoji questionnaires can be used with a range of population segments: Findings relating to age, gender and frequency of emoji/emoticon use

Journal

FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE
Volume 68, Issue -, Pages 397-410

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.12.011

Keywords

Emotion measurement; Research methods; Consumers

Funding

  1. New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited (PFR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The assessment of emoji questionnaires as a method in food-related consumer research is furthered by this methodological study aimed at exploring the extent to which they can be used with a range of population segments. In the first part of the paper, a web-based survey was implemented to assess differences in the interpretation of 33 facial emoji using a check-all-that-apply (CATA) question. Results showed that while emoji interpretation was not influenced by age and frequency of emoji/emoticon use in computer-mediated communications, age-related differences existed for a few emoji. In the second part of the paper, differences in the completion of emoji questionnaires used to measure product-elicited emotional associations were assessed across four studies involving the evaluation of written stimuli and tasted food samples. Gender and age did not influence consumer ability to describe and discriminate between stimuli, eliciting emoji profiles that were highly similar. Among more frequent users of emoji/emoticon, the average number of emoji used to characterise the stimuli was significant higher than among less frequent users, and there was a tendency toward greater discrimination, but the differences were small and of little concern regarding ability of the less frequent emoji/emoticon users' ability to perform the research task. The findings of this research provide preliminary evidence about the suitability of emoji surveys to measure product-related emotional associations with different consumer populations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available