Does the face show what the mind tells? A comparison between dynamic emotions obtained from facial expressions and Temporal Dominance of Emotions (TDE)
Bommel, Roelien van; Stieger, Markus ; Visalli, Michel ; Wijk, Rene de; Jager, Gerry - \ 2020
Food Quality and Preference 85 (2020). - ISSN 0950-3293
Explicit measures - FaceReader™ (FR) - Facial expressions - Implicit measures - Multiple bite assessment - Temporal Dominance of Emotions (TDE)
Measuring food-evoked emotions dynamically during consumption can be done using explicit self-report methods such as Temporal Dominance of Emotions (TDE), and implicit methods such as recording facial expressions. It is not known whether or how dynamic explicit and implicit emotion measures correspond. This study investigated how explicit self-reported food-evoked emotions evaluated with TDE are related to implicit food-evoked emotions determined from facial expressions. Fifty-six participants evaluated six yogurts with granola pieces varying in size, hardness and concentration, using multiple bite assessment employing TDE for the first, third and fifth bite of consumption. Consumers were video recorded during each bite of consumption and facial expressions were analysed using FaceReader™. Happy, interested, disgusted and bored were similar descriptors measured explicitly and implicitly. Little overlap was observed regarding the type of emotion characterization by FaceReader™ and TDE. Products were mainly discriminated along the valence dimension (positive – negative), and directly reflected product discrimination in terms of liking. FaceReader™ further differentiated the least liked products from each other on arousal and negative facial expressions. Our results indicated little dynamics in food-evoked emotions within and between bites. Facial expressions seemed more dynamic within bites, while explicit food-evoked emotion responses seemed more dynamic between bites. We conclude that FaceReader™ intensities of emotions and dominance durations observed in TDE are not directly comparable and show little overlap. Moreover, food-evoked emotion responses were fairly stable from first to last bite and only very limited changes were observed using implicit and explicit emotions measures.
Dutch consumers do not hesitate : Capturing implicit ‘no dominance’ durations using Hold-down Temporal Dominance methodologies for Sensations (TDS) and Emotions (TDE)
Bommel, Roelien van; Stieger, Markus ; Schlich, Pascal ; Jager, Gerry - \ 2019
Food Quality and Preference 71 (2019). - ISSN 0950-3293 - p. 332 - 342.
Chocolates - Dynamic sensory measurements - No dominance duration time - Temporal Dominance of Emotions (TDE) - Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS)
In the ‘classic’ Temporal Dominance (TD) method, panellists are instructed to select a dominant attribute, which remains dominant until another attribute is selected. This procedure does not allow recording ‘no dominance (ND)’. ND periods can occur because of indecisive selection behaviour due to hesitation or uncertainty about attribute selection and time needed to switch from one attribute to another. ND periods may create noise in TD data. ND can be recorded implicitly using a ‘Hold-down’ procedure, where panellists actively hold down the attribute button that is perceived dominant, but release it when no longer dominant. The ‘Hold-down’ procedure allows subjects to report indecisive behaviour simply by not holding down a button. This study compared the ‘classic’ and ‘Hold-down’ TD methodologies. One hundred and thirty-seven participants evaluated four dark chocolates in two sessions, one for sensory (TDS) and one for emotion (TDE) evaluations. Participants employed either classic (n = 68) or Hold-down (n = 69) TD following a between subjects design. Similar dominance rates and dynamic evolutions of attributes during consumption were observed for both methods. ND durations between attribute selections were shorter than 1 s during sensory and emotion evaluations. Such short ND durations unlikely reflect periods of true hesitation, but rather reflect the time needed to switch between dominant attributes. No evidence is found for Hold-down TD outperforming classic TD in terms of sensitivity and discrimination ability. In conclusion, irrespective of the conceptual likelihood regarding the occurrence of ‘no dominance’ periods, the present study failed to demonstrate moments of hesitation using the ‘Hold-down’ procedure.