Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

How do consumer hedonic ratings for extra virgin olive oil relate to quality
ratings by experts and descriptive analysis ratings?
Claudia Delgado, Jean-Xavier Guinard
Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A consumer study was conducted to evaluate preferences and attitudes regarding extra virgin olive oil
Received 12 May 2010 (EVOO) in an emergent market, the US. A generic descriptive analysis was used on 22 samples of EVOO
Received in revised form 24 September 2010 in order to identify the drivers of liking for this consumer population. Results showed that, for the major-
Accepted 22 October 2010
ity of consumers, bitterness and pungency were negative drivers of liking. Properties that drove positive
Available online 2 November 2010
ratings were fruity (green and ripe), nutty, and tea-like avors. A panel of EVOO experts provided quality
ratings for the products and these were correlated to the hedonic ratings by consumers, revealing some
Keywords:
disconnection between consumer preferences and expert evaluations. Cluster analysis and preference
Consumer preferences
Consumer attitudes
mapping of the consumer hedonic ratings revealed segmentation of preferences. The EVOOs price, avail-
Sensory properties able information, and reputation were key factors that drove purchases in this consumer population.
Extra virgin olive oil 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Segmentation

1. Introduction
While olive oil is a staple food for most countries in the Medi-
terranean region (i.e. Spain, Italy, and Greece), it is a relatively
new product in areas outside of it. In the US in particular, however,
interest in and consumption of olive oil has been growing expo-
nentially during the last 20 years. The US ranks fourth in olive oil
consumption, after Italy, Spain and Greece. US consumption went
from 88,000 tons in 1990 to 260,000 tons in 2009, an increase of
228% (International Olive Council, 2008). Despite being the most
important market outside the Mediterranean basin (Zampounis,
2006), the US produces less than 1% of the worlds EVOOs, which
is not enough to cover domestic demand and leaves imports mak-
ing up 99% of the oil consumed in the US (Vossen, 2007).
New olive oil consumers are interested in olive oil for two main
reasons: health benets and avor (Santosa, 2010). Because of ol-
ive oils particular chemical composition and rich supply of antiox-
idants, consumption has been associated with health benets such
as lowering the risk of coronary decease, preventing certain kinds of
cancer, and reducing inammation (Bendini et al., 2007; Medeiros
& Hampton, 2007; Servili et al., 2004; Trichopoulos & Lagiou, 2007;
Tripoli et al., 2004). Volatile compounds impart oils particular and
complex set of aromas, while phenolic compounds provide their
bitter and pungent avors (Andrewes, Bush, Joode, Groenewegen
Corresponding author. Address: Department of Food Science and Technology,
University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8598, United States.
Tel.: +1 530 754 8659; fax: +1 530 752 4759.
E-mail address: jxguinard@ucdavis.edu (J.-X. Guinard).
& Alexandre, 2003; Angerosa, Mostallino, Basti, & Vito, 2000;
Beltrn, Ruano, Jimnez, Uceda, & Aguilera, 2007; Garca-Mesa,
Pereira-Caro, Fernndez-Hernndez, Garca-Ortz Civantos, & Mateos,
2008).
Over the past 20 years, there have been numerous attempts to
dene a methodology for the evaluation of olive oil in terms of
its sensory qualities, consumer preferences, and chemical composi-
tion, with most of the work being conducted on volatile com-
pounds and their possible relationship to extra virgin olive oil
avor (Aparicio, Morales, & Alonso, 1996; Aparicio, Morales, &
Alonso, 1997; Caporale, Policastro, Carlucci, & Monteleone, 2006;
Morales, Alonso, Rios, & Aparicio, 1995). Other researchers have
explored consumer response to olive oil as a way of measuring
quality in terms of customer satisfaction (Krystallis & Ness, 2005;
Sandalidou & Baourakis, 2002). Matsatsinis, Grigoroudis, and
Samaras (2007) compared responses of distributors and olive oil
consumers, and found that perceived quality is important to both
segments, with perceived quality dened in terms of sensory prop-
erties: taste, aroma, color, appearance, texture, etc. Finotti, Bersani,
and Bersani (2007) developed a quality index based on chemical
parameters that are related to EVOOs microbiological/chemical
safety, nutritional and technological aspects; however, they did
not consider sensory characteristics in their model. More recently,
Dekhili and dHauteville (2009) have studied the effect of region of
origin on EVOOs perceived quality, measuring perceived quality in
terms of the price that a consumer is willing to pay. Despite all
these endeavors, no method has yet provided a comprehensive
way of examining the drivers of liking and quality in extra virgin
olive oil.

0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.10.004
214 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225

It is not clear what motivates consumers to purchase EVOOs. locally, in California (n = 11), and the other 50% were imported. The
Some authors emphasize the oils region of origin, focusing on country of origin and the variety of the olives are shown in Table 1.
the inuence of PDO (Protected Denomination Origin) designation For the descriptive analysis and expert panels, the samples were
and the degree to which an oil typies the characteristics of the served at room temperature (25 C) in transparent olive oil glasses
particular region as the main motivators behind consumption. (Libbey 1965 model, 4 3=4 oz capacity, 2 in diameter, those dimen-
Consumers who are experienced, local, or familiar with a particular sions corresponds to the glass recommended by the COI Doc.5),
region of origin tend to consider region a key factor that drives pur- with 15 mL of oil poured in each glass, and covered with a trans-
chasing and preference, while these factors do not seem to inu- parent plastic lid (Solo Cup model PL2 2-oz).
ence urban, less knowledgeable, and less experienced consumers For the consumer test, samples were served at room tempera-
(Caporale et al., 2006; Fotopoulos & Krystallis, 2001; Stefani, Romano, ture in soufs plastic cups (Solo cup model B200) with 10 mL of
& Cavicchi, 2006). Other authors focus on EVOOs health benets oil poured in each cup and covered with a transparent plastic lid
and avor (including its use to enhance the taste of recipes) as (Solo Cup model PL2 2-oz). White bread (Classical White Wonder)
main motivators for olive oil consumption, but still second in was provided as a sample carrier. A commercial brand was selected
importance behind packaging, price and size (Krystallis & Ness, in order to prevent variation in bread taste or quality.
2003; Martnez, Aragons, & Poole, 2002; Sandalidou & Baourakis, In the three experiments (descriptive analysis, experts quality
2002). The applicability of these studies to consumers in the US ratings, and consumer test) the samples were codied using ran-
and other emergent markets is debatable, however, since many dom 3-digit numbers and poured at least 30 min before the tasting.
of these studies have been conducted in European markets, where Water, previously ltered in the Millipore Milli-Q water ltration
European consumers, especially those in the Mediterranean region, system, slices of granny smith apple and unsalted crackers were
have greater exposure to extra virgin olive oil and tend to use it on provided as palate cleansers.
a daily basis.
The present research was intended to uncover the main drivers 2.2. Descriptive analysis
of liking and disliking among US (Northern California) consumers,
and the correlations between consumer hedonic scores, on the A panel of 18 judges (14 women and 4 men) with an average age
one hand, and experts quality ratings and descriptive analysis of 29 years for women and 30 years for men was assembled for this
measurements on the other. Experts quality ratings were based study. A generic descriptive analysis (Lawless & Heymann, 1998)
on well-established, internationally used methodology that was was used to develop the language and methodology for the evalua-
developed by the International Olive Council for establishing the tion of extra virgin olive oil. Each panelist completed 10 training
commercial grade (i.e. extra virgin) of the product. However, sessions (development of the language, concept alignment, agree-
because olive oil is a growing and relatively new product for many ment). FIZZ software (Biosystmes) was used to build an automated
Americans, there is no data showing how expert ratings may inu- session. A total of 22 attributes were dened by the panel and were
ence consumer preferences. Another aim of the research was to dis- evaluated using a continuous unstructured line scale of 10 cm,
cover the factors that motivate the purchase and consumption of ranging from low to high intensity. EVOOs were evaluated in tripli-
olive oil by consumers in an emergent market (the US), and to cate, with 5 samples evaluated per session. The order of presenta-
determine whether there were any relationship between hedonic tion of the samples was randomized using a Latin square design
scores and demographic and usage characteristics. provided by the FIZZ software. More details about the methods
can be found in Delgado and Guinard (submitted for publication-a).
2. Materials and methods
2.3. Experts panel and quality rating denition
2.1. Samples
Twenty-three experts drawn from the California Olive Oil Coun-
Twenty-two commercial extra virgin olive oils (EVOO) were cil (COOC) Taste Panel, the University of Californias Extension Pa-
used for this research. Fifty percent of the samples were produced nel in Santa Rosa, and the Los Angeles International Olive Oil
Competition Taste Panel evaluated sensory quality using a 100-
Table 1 points scale, where 030 was inedible and 90100 was excellent
Extra virgin olive oils used in this study country of origin and olive variety.
quality. The order of presentation of the samples was randomized
ID # Country of origin Variety using a Latin square design provided by the FIZZ software. More
S1 Spain Picual details regarding the method can be found in Delgado and Guinard
S2 Spain Hojiblanca (submitted for publication-b).
C1 Chile Picual
C2 Chile Arbequina
2.4. Consumer test
I1 Italy Frantoio
I2 Italy Taggiasche (Late harvest)
I3 Italy Taggiasche Consumers were recruited in supermarkets, at farmers markets,
I4 Italy Picholino and through internet sources such as the email directory of the
A1 Australia Hojiblanca University of California, Davis and Craigslist. They were screened
GS Spain Generic Brand (Oils from several countries)
according to their consumption patterns and interest in extra vir-
GI Italy Generic Brand (Oils from Italy)
U1 USA (California) Arbequina gin olive oil. The FIZZ software was used to construct an automated
U2 USA (California) Blend session. The experimental design was a Williams Latin square de-
U3 USA (California) Arbequina/Arbosana/Koroneiki sign provided by the FIZZ software.
U4 USA (California) Sevillano The consumer sample size was determined using the Kasten-
U5 USA (California) Frantoio
U6 USA (California) Mission/Manzanillo/Sevillano/Barouni/ Ascolano
baum simplication of Tang method which determines sample size
U7 USA (California) Manzanillo/Mission (N) from tables for a given values of s, a and b. The value of s is ob-
U8 USA (California) Blend tained from the following formula (s) = (lmax lmin)/r. In this
U9 USA (California) Arbequina case a = 0.05 and b = 0.1 (Power of 90%), assuming a standard devi-
U10 USA (California) Frantoio/Leccino/Pendolino/Coratina
ation of 2 and the detectable difference among samples of 1 unit in
U11 USA (California) Mission
the 9-point hedonic scale. The value of tau was determined as
 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225 215

follows: (s) = (lmax lmin)/r = (1)/2 = 0.5. Because of the high
number of samples, the 22 samples were evaluated in blocks of 5
samples, so that k was equal to 5. From Table A-8 in Gacula and
Singh (1984) the sample size corresponding to those parameters
was approximately 100 consumers.
The experiment was conducted at the RMI Sensory Building at
the University of California, Davis. The study consisted of two ses-
sions. During the rst session consumers evaluated a total of 12
samples with a 15-min break taken after every 5 samples, and a
1-min break between each sample. In the second session consum-
ers evaluated 10 samples and completed a brief survey (exit survey)
that assessed their attitudes and beliefs about olive oil and collected
their demographic information. Both the exit survey and the tasting
questionnaire were pretested with a small group of consumers
(n = 20) to determine whether all questions were clear, in order to
avoid ambiguity and effects from wording. Consumers received a
$10 dollar gift card for their participation in the study.
2.4.1. Tasting
Different approaches were used to determine the acceptability
of the oils among consumers. For each EVOO sample, consumers
indicated their overall liking using the 9-point hedonic scale
(Peryam & Pilgrim, 1957), their intent to purchase (5-point scale);
the price they would be willing to pay for a 375 mL bottle of the
product; their willingness to consume the product a second time
(5-point scale); their evaluation on a Likert scale (5 points) of the
EVOOs quality, color, taste, aroma, and texture; and the strength
of their recommendation of the product (5-point scale). For a
description of each scale, see Table 2.
oil purchased, factors inuencing olive oil purchasing and some atti-
tudes regarding olive oil. Demographics such as gender, age, ethnic-
ity, education level, household income, and marital status were also
included. This information was obtained by an internet-based sur-
vey posted on Survey Monkey. The questionnaire followed standard
guidelines for web-based surveys: it was self-administered, in-
cluded multiple choice questions, used randomized answers when
appropriate, and did not allow consumers to proceed to a new sec-
tion until they had completed the preceding section.
2.5. Statistical analysis
The majority of the statistical analyses were executed using SAS
version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary NC). The level of condence was set
at alpha equal to 0.05. To measure the relationships among demo-
graphic and behavioral information, quality ratings by experts and
the sensory properties of the EVOOs, univariate analysis, (correla-
tion, analysis of variance, and Fishers LSD multiple mean compar-
isons), and multivariate analysis such as canonical variate analysis
(CVA), MANOVA, and preference mapping, both internal and exter-
nal, were performed. Market segmentation was determined using
preference mapping and cluster analysis. Chi-squared was applied
to classify the market segmentation clusters according to variables
associated with demographics, attitudes, and habits. Cluster analy-
sis was performed with XL-Stat Version 2009.3.02 (Addinsoft). The
Unscrambler version 9.8 (Camo Software) was used to perform
partial least square regression (PLS) analysis.
3. Results and discussion

2.4.2. Exit survey: demographics, consumption and attitudes A total of 110 consumers completed the study. Most respon-
The variables included in the survey were as follows: frequency dents were female (74%), with an average age of 40 years and of
of olive oil consumption, reasons to consume olive oil, frequency of White/Caucasian ethnicity (75%). Educational level was distributed
purchase, places where consumers buy olive oil, categories of olive mostly across four categories, with 83% having attended college as

Table 2
Description of the scales used by consumers to evaluate each EVOO sample.

(a) Nine-point hedonic scale

h h h h h h h h h
Dislike Dislike Very Dislike Dislike Neither like nor Like Like Like Very Like
Extremely Much Moderately Slightly dislike Slightly Moderately Much Extremely

(b) Five-point purchase intent rating scale

h h h h h
Denitely I would not buy it Probably I would not buy it Neither would not buy it, nor would buy it Probably I would buy it Denitely I would buy it

(c) Price consumers will pay for the EVOO sample

h h h h h h h h
$0 $1$5 $610 $1115 $16-$20 $2125 $2630 More than $30

(d) Five-point repeat consumption scale

h h h h h
I would certainly not consume this I would probably not consume this Not sure or I would probably consume this I would certainly consume this
EVOO again EVOO again undecided EVOO again EVOO again

(e) Facts regarding the product 5-point Likert scale

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neutral Somewhat agree Strongly agree
This EVOO is of high quality h h h h h
I like the color of this EVOO h h h h h
I like the taste of this EVOO h h h h h
I like the aroma of this EVOO h h h h h
I like the texture of this EVOO h h h h h

(f) Recommendation to friends/relatives

Not Likely Somewhat Unlikely Uncertain Somewhat Likely Very Likely
h h h h h
216 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225

follows: some college (24%), bachelor degree (21%), some graduate
work (14%), and masters degree (24%). Income level was distrib-
uted evenly among the optional categories. Marital status showed
39% as single/never married, 21% as married or living with a part-
ner with no children at home, and 25% as married or living with a
partner with children at home.
Overall liking was signicantly correlated to the other variables
included in the tasting survey (purchase intent rating; the price
they would be willing to pay for the sample; willingness to con-
sume the product a second time; ratings of EVOOs; and recommen-
dation of the product) (Table 3). It was found that acceptability and
perceived quality in EVOO by consumers were highly correlated to
overall liking, which coincides with previous studies that found
that perceived quality by consumers is a function of hedonic rat-
ings (Cardello, 1995; Lawless & Liu, 1997).
3.1. Identication of general drivers of liking in EVOO
External preference mapping (see Figs. 1a and b) allows the
identication of both positive and negative drivers of liking. For
the majority of consumers, bitterness and pungency appeared as
negative drivers of liking. These results disagree to some extent
with the work of Caporale et al. (2006), who found that, from the
consumer point of view, bitterness and pungency are appropriate
sensory descriptors for certain typical oils; one of the reasons for
the discrepancy might be the level of consumer expertise in extra
virgin olive oil, with the latter study being conducted with Italian
olive oil consumers and with very restrictive criteria (e.g., includ-
ing only heavy EVOO users who came from a particular region in
Italy). As a consequence those consumers might have identied
bitterness and pungency more readily as positive qualities than
did the consumer population in this study.
Given that American consumers are relatively new consumers
of EVOO, the rejection of bitterness and pungency is a natural reac-
tion, in that poisonous or toxic substances tend to be bitter. Since
humans acquire a taste for bitterness and pungency as adults and
in response to learning or cultural processes (Drewnowski, 1997;
Drewnowski & Gomez-Carneros, 2000; Kim, Breslin, Reed, & Drayna,
2004), consumers in emergent markets may not have enough
exposure to the product to have learned to appreciate bitterness

Table 3
Correlation of overall liking vs. alternative ways to ask for perceived quality by consumers.a,b

OL PIR Price C Facts regarding the product RF

HQ Color Taste Aroma Texture
OL 1
PIR 0.996 1
Price 0.987 0.990 1
C 0.997 0.997 0.988 1
HQ 0.979 0.983 0.985 0.983 1
Color 0.603 0.630 0.628 0.599 0.689 1
Taste 0.998 0.994 0.985 0.997 0.974 0.570 1
Aroma 0.899 0.920 0.916 0.906 0.929 0.799 0.891 1
Texture 0.975 0.974 0.966 0.972 0.978 0.687 0.967 0.895 1
RF 0.995 0.997 0.987 0.996 0.984 0.635 0.993 0.919 0.976 1
a
Means over 110 consumers. Refer to Table 1 for a description of the scales. OL, overall liking; PIR, purchase intent rating; Price, expected price to pay for the product; C,
willingness to consume of the product for a second time. Facts regarding the product (HQ, This is a high quality EVOO; Color, I like the color of this EVOO; Taste, I like the taste
of this EVOO; Aroma, I like the aroma of this EVOO; and Texture, I like the texture of this EVOO). RF, willingness to recommend the product to friends and family members.
b
All correlation coefcients were signicant p < 0.05. Pearsons critical value (a = 5%; df = 20; two tailed) = 0.4227.

Fig. 1a. External preference mapping for 22 extra virgin olive oils and 22 sensory attributes, using the vector model (dimensions 1 & 2).
 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225 217

Fig. 1b. External preference mapping for 22 extra virgin olive oils and 22 sensory attributes, using the vector model (dimensions 1 & 3).

Fig. 2. Preference cluster dendrogram (Wards method. Euclidean distance n = 110 consumers).

and pungency in olive oil. Similar responses have been obtained in
evaluating green vegetables and beers, among others; consumers
did not like products that were heavily bitter and/or ranked them
as lower in quality than products with less bitterness (Guinard
et al., 1996; Bech, Hansen, & Wienberg, 2009).
However, bitterness and pungency are naturally present in
EVOO, and the compounds associated with these sensory proper-
ties are also responsible for some of the health properties of EVOO;
consequently, oils lower in bitterness and pungency may have
reduced health benets. Drewnowski and Gomez-Carneros
(2000) indicated that in order to increase consumer acceptability
of bitter/pungent food products, some masking agents such as
cyclodextrins or other chemical ingredients might need to be
added to lessen the perception of those sensory properties while
retaining the benecial health properties, but in the case of EVOO,
this is not possible since adding external ingredients would
amount to adulteration of the product. However, EVOO might be
deemed more acceptable when mixed with other food such as sal-
ad or bread and when used for cooking, which is another way of
masking the bitterness and pungency. But more importantly, it is
likely that increasing consumers exposure to EVOO and providing
information regarding the association of these properties with high
218 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225

sensory quality and health benets will increase consumers
acceptability of bitterness and pungency, similar to what has been
seen with the consumption of specialty beers and coffees.
In general the positive drivers of liking were nutty, ripe fruit,
green tea, butter, green fruit, and grassy attributes, although for
some consumers, attributes that are characteristic of defective
oilsrancidity, mustiness, fustiness and winey avorwere drivers
of liking. These consumers may not have been exposed to enough
information regarding the properties of EVOO, or almost surely,
they may have become used to these defects, either from keeping
the same bottle of EVOO in their kitchen for a long period of time
until the oil deteriorates, or simply from buying cheap, imported
and mass-marketed olive oils, which are more likely to be
defective.
Figs. 1a and b show that only a few consumers liked oils with
oral, minty, and tropical fruit characteristics; except for U11,
the oils in this category came from Spain, indicating that consum-
ers in this study either were not familiar with Spanish oils or did
not like the characteristics of those oils. There were a high number
of consumers who seemed to like U11 the most.
3.2. Market segmentation
Figs. 1a and b provide a general background regarding the prod-
ucts that most consumers preferred and both the negative and po-
sitive drivers of liking. However, consumers differed in their
preferences for the EVOOs. Three clusters were identied (Wards
Method, Euclidean distance) as shown in Fig. 2. There were signif-
icant differences among the three segments (ANOVA, p < 0.05).
Tables 4 and 5 summarize the demographics, consumption habits,
and purchasing habits of the consumers.
Consumers did not differ signicantly (p > 0.05) in their con-
sumption and purchasing habits, likely because they had been
screened previously based on their olive oil consumption. So

Table 4
Consumer demographics summarya (percentages are in parentheses for each cluster and the totals) from the exit survey.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Total

(n = 33) (n = 48) (n = 29) (n = 110)
Gender
Female 19 (58%) 40 (83%) 22 (76%) 81 (74%)
Male 14 (42%) 8 (17%) 7 (24%) 29 (26%)
CHISQ pb = 0.0336* pc < 0.0001*
Ethnicity
Asian-Asian American 3 (9%) 9 (19%) 4 (14%) 16 (15%)
White-Caucasian (Non Hispanic) 27 (82%) 36 (75%) 20 (69%) 83 (75%)
Hispanic or Latino 1 (3%) 1 (2%) 5 (17%) 7 (6%)
Mixed or Other 2 (6%) 2(4%) 0 (0%) 4 (4%)
CHISQ pb = 0.1021 NS pc < 0.0001*
Educational level
High School Diploma 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 1 (3%) 3 (3%)
Some college 6 (18%) 15 (31%) 6 (21%) 27 (25%)
Bachelor degree 5 (15%) 10 (21%) 6(21%) 23 (21%)
Some graduate work 5 (15%) 8 (17%) 3 (10%) 16 (15%)
Master degree 11 (33%) 10 (21%) 5 (17%) 26 (24%)
Professional degree 1 (3%) 1 (2%) 4 (14%) 6 (5%)
PhD 1 (3%) 2 (4%) 4 (14%) 7 (6%)
Prefer not to answer 2 (6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (2%)
CHISQ pb = 0.1817 NS pc < 0.0001*
Income
Less than $25,000 6 (18%) 18 (38%) 4 (14%) 28 (25%)
$25,000$49,999 5 (15%) 10 (21%) 6 (21%) 21 (19%)
$50,000$74,999 3 (9%) 4 (8%) 3 (10%) 10 (9%)
$75,000$99,999 3 (9%) 8 (17%) 8 (28%) 19 (17%)
$100,000 and over 11 (33%) 4 (8%) 6 (21%) 21 (19%)
Prefer not to answer 5 (15%) 4 (8%) 2 (7%) 11 (10%)
CHISQ pb = 0.0926 NS pc = 0.0272*

Age
1829 years 6 (18%) 23 (48%) 6 (21%) 35 (32%)
3039 years 11 (33%) 8 (17%) 8 (28%) 27 (25%)
4049 years 6 (18%) 4 (8%) 5 (17%) 15 (14%)
5059 years 7 (21%) 7 (15%) 6 (21%) 20 (18%)
More than 59 years 3 (9%) 6 (13%) 4 (14%) 13 (12%)
CHISQ1 pb = 0.150 NS pc = 0.0048*

Marital status
Single never married 11 (33%) 25 (52%) 7 (24%) 43 (39%)
Living with a partner or married no children at home 4 (12%) 10 (21%) 9 (31%) 23 (21%)
Living with a partner or married with children at home 12 (36%) 6 (13%) 10 (34%) 28 (25%)
Divorced 2 (6%) 4 (8%) 2 (7%) 8 (7%)
Widow/widower 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 1 (3%) 2 (2%)
Prefer not to answer 4 (12%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 6 (5%)
CHISQ pb = 0.0568 NS pc < 0.0001
a
*Signicant at p < 0.05; NS, not signicant, p > 0.05.
b
The rst p-value given in the table corresponds to the contingency table chi square, which measures the association between columns and rows, in this case between
clusters and categories (i.e. female, male (rows) vs. clusters 1, 2 and 3 (columns)). With the exception of gender (p < 0.05) there was no association between clusters and each
demographic variable.
c
The second p-value corresponds to the differences between the answers in each category.
 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225 219

Table 5
Olive oil frequency of consumption and purchasea (percentages are indicated in parenthesis for each cluster and the totals).

Cluster 1 (n = 33) Cluster 2 (n = 48) Cluster 3 (n = 29) Total (n = 110)

Consumption
Once a year or less 1 (3%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 2(2%)
Less than once a month 1 (3%) 2 (4%) 1 (3%) 4 (4%)
13 times a month 2 (6%) 5 (10%) 4 (14%) 11 (10%)
Once a week 5 (15%) 7 (15%) 2 (7%) 14 (13%)
26 times a week 17 (52%) 23 (48%) 14 (48%) 54 (49%)
Every day 7 (21%) 10 (21%) 8 (28%) 25 (23%)
CHISQ pb = 0.9720 NS pc < 0.0001*
Purchasing
Never 1 (3%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (2%)
Less than once a year 0 (0%) 3 (6%) 1 (3%) 4 (4%)
Once a year 1 (3%) 4 (8%) 4 (14%) 9 (8%)
Once every 6 months (2 times a year) 4 (12%) 8 (17%) 3 (10%) 15 (14%)
Once every 4 months (3 times a year) 7 (21%) 10 (21%) 4 (14%) 21(19%)
Once every 23 months (46 times a year) 13 (39%) 20 (42%) 11 (38%) 44 (40%)
Once a month (12 times a year or more) 7 (21%) 2 (4%) 6 (21%) 15 (14%)
CHISQ pb = 0.4485 NS pc < 0.0001*
Place of purchase d
Farmers Market 19 (58%) 16 (33%) 12 (41%) 47 (43%)
Supermarket 25 (76%) 29 (60%) 21 (72%) 75 (68%)
Discount retail 5 (15%) 5(10%) 6 (21%) 16 (15%)
Warehouse Club 13 (39%) 16 (33%) 12 (41%) 41 (37%)
Specialty store 22 (67%) 17 (35%) 16 (55%) 55 (50%)
Winey 4 (12%) 3 (6%) 3 (10%) 10 (9%)
Tasting Fairs 7 (21%) 4 (8%) 7 (24%) 18 (16%)
Direct shipping from producer in US 1 (3%) 1 (2%) 2 (7%) 4 (4%)
Direct import from overseas 0 (0%) 4 (8%) 1 (3%) 5 (5%)
Overseas while traveling abroad 8 (24%) 3 (6%) 0 (0%) 11 (10%)
Other 4 (12%) 8 (17%) 2 (7%) 14 (13%)
CHISQ pb = 0.4455 NS pc < 0.0001*
a
*, signicant at p < 0.05; NS, not signicant p > 0.05.
b
The rst p-value given in the table corresponds to the contingency table chi square, which measures the association between columns and rows.
c
The second p-value corresponds to the differences between the answers in each category.
d
For this question, consumers were asked to select all that apply, hence percentages add up to more than 100.

Table 6
Motivationsa to consume olive oil.

Cluster 1 (n = 33) Cluster 2 (n = 48) Cluster 3 (n = 29) Total (n = 110)

Flavor 20 (61%) 16 (33%) 13 (45%) 49 (45%)
Parents used 16 (48%) 22 (46%) 13 (45%) 51 (46%)
Received as gift 1 (3%) 3 (6%) 1 (3%) 5 (5%)
Olive oil tasting or sampling 5 (15%) 4 (8%) 4 (14%) 13 (12%)
Condiment dipping bread at restaurant 17 (52%) 31 (65%) 17 (59%) 65 (59%)
Health benets 24 (73%) 37 (77%) 20 (69%) 81 (74%)
Recipes cooking 24 (73%) 29 (69%) 20 (69%) 73 (66%)
CHISQ pb = 0.9429 NS
a
Represents the number of consumers and percentage who reported the factor to be a reason to consume olive oil; the format of the question was check all that apply,
hence percentages may add up to more than 100.
b
The p-value given in the table correspond to the contingency table chi square which measures association between columns and rows. There were no association between
clusters and each frequency variable. NS, not signicant (p > 0.05).

although they had different preferences, their consumption and
purchase habits were pre-established before the study. The major-
ity of consumers bought EVOO primarily at supermarkets (68%),
specialty stores (50%) and farmers markets (43%), in contrast with
the ways in which Mediterranean consumers most frequently buy
their EVOOs. Fotopoulos and Krystallis (2001), for example, re-
ported that 41% of Cretan consumers buy olive oil at the supermar-
ket, while 38% buy in bulk directly from the producer or farm, and
21% make oil from their own orchards. In buying EVOO at super-
markets, consumers are not exposed to the sensory properties of
the product, as they are in farmers markets or direct from produc-
ers or farms, and so their decisions are based on extrinsic factors
such as packaging material, bottle material and label design. In
contrast, when consumers buy the oil in bulk directly from the pro-
ducer, they experience the properties of the oil and can make pur-
chasing decisions based on sensory factors.
While American consumers tend to be aware of the health ben-
ets and general avors of olive oil, most have little information or
opportunity to actually experience the product (Santosa, 2010).
Table 6 shows the consumers motivations to consume olive oil
for the population in this study. The main motivator was health
benets (74%), followed by use in cooking (66%). It is surprising
that the third most important motivating factor was to use the
oil as a condiment for the dipping of bread after experiencing this
in a restaurant (59%); the inuence of parents consumption of ol-
ive oil (46%) and oil avor (44%) were the fourth and fth leading
motivators, respectively. The importance associated with these
motivational factors concurs with previous research that showed
health, taste and avor, and curiosity for new recipes as the key
drivers of consumption for UK consumers (Martnez et al., 2002).
Greek consumers, who are experienced consumers, have indicated
health, tradition, price, and special characteristics (sensory properties)
220 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225

Fig. 3a. Drivers of liking by preference cluster (dimension 1 vs. dimension 2). Biplot of EVOOs and consumers (Extra virgin olive oils are identied by a solid circle; Segment 1
(cluster 1 = 33 consumers) by a solid square, segment 2 (cluster 2 = 48 consumers) by a solid triangle, and segment 3 (cluster 3 = 29 consumers) with a star).

Fig. 3b. Drivers of liking by preference cluster (dimension 1 vs. dimension 2). Biplot of attributes and consumers (segment 1 (cluster 1 = 33 consumers) is represented by a
solid square, segment 2 (cluster 2 = 48 consumers) by a solid triangle, and segment 3 (cluster 3 = 29 consumers) with a star. Vectors represent attributes).

as key motivators in their consumption of olive oil (Krystallis &
Ness, 2003, 2005; Sandalidou & Baourakis, 2002).
The drivers of liking for each segment are characterized in Figs.
3 and 4. Cluster 1 (n = 33) differed from the other clusters in that
the consumers in that cluster tended to like the majority of the
products, giving the highest liking scores. Consumers in this cluster
tended to like equally grassy, green fruit, and spicy characteristics
in the oil but also they did not seem to nd bitterness or pungency.
This cluster is also not sensitive to the defects. For this cluster the
positive drivers of liking were nutty, green fruit, buttery, and
slightly fusty and rancid attributes.
The drivers of liking for cluster 2 (n = 48) were buttery attri-
butes as well as all the defective characteristicsmustiness, winey-
ness, fustiness and rancidity. For these consumers, bitterness,
pungency and astringency were negative drivers of liking. On the
whole they preferred Italian oils (I1, I2, I3, GI), while a few of them
liked GS and U5. It is interesting that this group had established
previously that health properties were a strong motivator in con-
sumption, yet they favored oils that were defective and rancid. Per-
haps this result indicates their need for more information
regarding olive oil as well as more exposure to different kinds of
olive oils. The preference for buttery oils might be associated with
the consumption of olive oil as a substitute for butter on their
bread. Figs. 3 and 4 show this clusters strong preference for oil
U11, which was characterized mainly by oral and herbal aromas.
Cluster 3 (n = 29) differed from the other two clusters by favor-
ing not only nutty, green tea, and ripe fruit characteristics but also
green fruit, grassy, and green tomato properties as positive drivers
of liking (see Figs. 3 and 4). These consumers tended not to like
slightly minty, herbs, and tropical fruit aromas in their oils. The oils
preferred by this cluster were U1, C2, U9, U4, U3, and, for a few of
them, U5, I4, and I3.
Oils U10, U8, S2 and S1 were not liked by most consumers, a re-
sult that can be explained by these oils strong bitterness and pun-
gency. The highest mean hedonic score was obtained by I3, which
can be explained by the fact that its sensory propertiesbuttery,
nutty, with slight rancidity but no bitterness or pungency at all
appealed to all three clusters,
The clusters also differed in terms of the factors that most inu-
enced their decision to purchase olive oil. Fig. 5 indicates the
importance that each cluster, on average, assigned to each buying
factor. Demographically, clusters 1 and 3 were similar; however,
 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225 221

Fig. 4a. Drivers of liking by preference cluster (dimension 1 vs. dimension 3). Biplot of EVOOs and consumers.

Fig. 4b. Drivers of liking by preference cluster (dimension 1 vs. dimension 3). Biplot of attributes and consumers.

Fig. 5. Principal component analysis of the factors (the importance of each factor was measured on a 5-point scale where 1 = Not important; 3 = Neutral; 5 = very important.
Cluster 1 (n = 33) is identied by a solid square, cluster 2 (n = 48) by solid triangle, and cluster 3 (n = 29) by a solid diamond. Vectors represent purchase factors) that most
inuence the EVOO purchase decisions across preference clusters.
222 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225

Fig. 6. Principal component analysis of some attitudes (attitudes were measured using a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = completely disagree; 3 = neither agree, nor disagree;
5 = completely agree. Cluster 1 (n = 33) is identied by a solid square, cluster 2 (n = 48) by solid triangle, and cluster 3 (n = 29) by a solid diamond. Vectors represent attitudes
toward EVOO) regarding EVOO across preference segments.

Fig. 7. PLS regression (correlations loadings between expert (n = 23) quality ratings and consumer (n = 110) hedonic scores) of experts quality rating scores and consumers
hedonic scores.

they differed in income level, which was higher for cluster 1. For
cluster 1 the most important factors in purchasing decisions were
the awards an oil had won as well as its region of origin, appear-
ance and color. In cluster 3 the key factors affecting their purchas-
ing decisions were the information regarding the product, and, to a
lesser extent, certication of its quality, their previous tasting
experience with the oil, and its color and appearance. With experi-
enced or local consumers, previous research has shown that region
of origin is the key factor in purchasing decisions (Dekhili &
dHauteville, 2009; Fotopoulos & Krystallis, 2001; Stefani et al.,
2006; van der Lans, van Itters, De Cicco, & Loseby, 2001). Cluster
2 determined purchases by price, packaging attractiveness, and la-
bel design. To some extent they were inuenced by friends recom-
mendations, brand name reputation, experts recommendations,
and nutritional content. To a lesser extent, they made decisions
based on the volume of oil in the bottle, its designation as extra vir-
gin, and the labels sensory descriptors. This cluster had the lowest
levels of income and education, which may explain their concern
with product price.
That price is a factor in purchasing decisions concurs with pre-
vious surveys that have found that both price and promotions
drive purchases of olive oil (Krystallis & Ness, 2005; Martnez
et al., 2002; Sandalidou & Baourakis, 2002). In the study conducted
by Krystallis and Ness (2003) among Greek consumers, price was
found to be the least inuential factor in consumers selection of
EVOOs. This result can be explained by the fact that, as an olive
oil-producing country with a very high demand for and consump-
tion of olive oil, Greece has numerous producers and suppliers of
olive oil; since a signicant proportion of Mediterranean consum-
ers buy olive oil in bulk and therefore do not pay a premium for
marketing and packaging costs, price is reduced in its importance
as a factor. In contrast, in America, there are relatively few produc-
ers and the cost of imports and third party distributors make oils
more expensive, so cost becomes a more important factor to
consumers.
If the study conducted in the UK by Martnez et al. (2002) is any
indication, consumers of extra virgin and virgin olive oil tend to
be childless and to average about 35 years of age; from these
 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225 223

Fig. 8. Comparison of quality ratings (quality rating scale 0100 (n = 23 experts)) by experts and hedonic scores (hedonic scale (9 point): where 1 = Dislike Extremely;
5 = Neither like nor dislike; and 9 = Like Extremely (n = 110 consumers). Cluster 1(n = 33), cluster 2 (n = 48), and cluster 3 (n = 29)) (overall liking) by EVOO consumers.

demographics, it can be concluded that they have time and the
resources to treat themselves to gourmet products, including extra
virgin olive oil. The price of EVOO might make it less appealing to
persons of a younger age, who tend to not be as afuent, as well as
to those who are older, whose eating habits, on average, tend to be
conservative in trying new foods.
Attitudes in regard to EVOO also differed by cluster (see Fig. 6).
Consumers in cluster 1 considered imported oils superior to
domestic oils, and liked EVOO because it is a natural food and en-
hances cooking. The second cluster felt that all oils tasted the same,
but did believe that EVOO was a healthy food. Finally the third
cluster preferred oils in glass bottles to those in plastic bottles,
appreciated the taste that EVOO gives to salads, and considered
it an environmentally friendly product, but at the same time, noted
its expense as a cooking oil.
3.3. Relationship between experts quality ratings and consumers
hedonic scores
The following graphs explain the response of consumers to
quality ratings given by a group of EVOO experts. The PLS regres-
sion analysis in Fig. 7 indicates that only in a few cases, consumers
hedonic scores correlated with experts quality ratings, a result
that might be explained by the background of those consumers
and their degree of familiarity with olive oil compared with the
rest of the consumers. For the majority of the consumer population
in this study, however, hedonic scores did not match experts qual-
ity ratings. These results imply that quality ratings by experts are
not a good predictor of consumers hedonic scores. Because of
expertise and exposure to different olive oil proles, experts are
aware that bitterness and pungency are positive characteristics,
224 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225
in contrast to the majority of consumers, who did not favor these
sensory properties in new food products. It is fair to assume that
as the number of ofcial competitions and awards for extra virgin
olive oils continues to grow worldwide, consumers will come to
increasingly follow the opinions of the experts behind those
events, much in the same way they do for wine.
Fig. 8 represents the linear regression between the average lik-
ing scores by cluster and the average quality rating. None of the
correlations was signicant (p > 0.05, df = 20). The trend for each
cluster and its relationship with the quality ratings are different;
for instance, consumers in cluster 1 disagreed with experts ratings
in that they tended to like the majority of the oils, even those that
experts considered to be of very poor quality. However, they
agreed in their positive ratings of oils U9, U3, U1, I4, and C2. The
only oils that this group did not like were U2, S1, U8 and U10. Clus-
ter 2 is the inverse of cluster 1; they tended to dislike the majority
of oils, with the exception of I2, I3, U11, and A1. This segment is in
complete disagreement with the experts in their assessment of
what constitutes high quality in extra virgin olive oil. The third
cluster had some agreement with experts in their assessment of
high quality EVOOs. There was a positive relationship between
the quality rating and the hedonic liking scores for most oils, with
only U8 and U10 showing no agreement in assessments between
this group of consumers and experts.
4. Conclusions
Some segmentation was found in this consumer population. The
three groups differed in some of their demographic characteristics,
and also in their preferences, which were based for the most part
on the sensory properties of the product. The three segments
agreed in their rejection of bitterness and pungency as positive
qualities, with these characteristics being more important for the
second segment, which tended to like the slightly defective oils.
The third segment preferred EVOOs with nutty, green tea, and ripe
fruit characteristics, but did not like those with tropical fruit or
herbal aromas. Finally, the rst segment liked the majority of the
oils in this study, showed less sensitivity to defects, and contained
some people who did not object to bitterness and pungency in the
oils.
For cluster 1, the main driver of purchasing and attitudes
regarding extra virgin olive oil was the reputation of the oil; they
considered imported oils to be of better quality. For cluster 2, price
was the main driver of purchase; they thought of EVOO as a
healthy product but considered all of them to taste the same. Clus-
ter 3 was inuenced by the information available for the product,
tended to use EVOO in salad dressings but considered it is too
expensive as cooking oil.
With the exception of cluster 3, there were discrepancies be-
tween consumers preferences and experts quality ratings of
EVOOs. This points to the need to educate US consumers about
the different styles of EVOOs and the wide range of sensory prop-
erties associated with them, most efciently through increased
exposure to the entire world of EVOOs, not just the mainstream,
high-volume, import brands.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Paul Vossen and Michael Bradley for their
helpful suggestions and Dr. Hildegarde Heymann for her assistance
with the SAS codes in the multivariate analyses.
Experts Panel: Paul Vossen, Ramon Aparicio, Nancy Ash, Milagros
Castro, Sarah Chironi, Thomas Curry, Elena Franceschi, Veronica
Gaynor, Richard Gawel, Fran Gage, Luis Guerrero, Bruce Golino,
Louie Gonzalez, John Hadley, Arden Kremer, Nancy Lilly, Julie
Menge, Marvin Martin, Frank Menacho, Jeffers Richardson, Debo-
rah Rogers, Sandy Sonnenfelt, Dean Wilkinson.
Olive oil donations: Corto Olive Oil; UC Davis Olive Center; Corti
Brothers; The Olive Press; Hojiblanca; Golden Hill; Jovia Groves;
Dos Colinas; McEvoy Olive Oil; Veronica Foods; Calolea; Sciabicas
Family.
References
Andrewes, P., Bush, J. L. H. C., Joode, T. d., Groenewegen, A., & Alexandre, H. (2003).
Sensory properties of virgin olive oil polyphenols: identication of deacetoxy-
ligstroside aglycon as a key contributor to pungency. Journal of Agriculture and
Food Chemistry, 51, 14151420.
Angerosa, F., Mostallino, R., Basti, C., & Vito, R. (2000). Virgin olive oil odour notes:
Their relationships with volatile compounds from the lipoxygenase pathway
and secoiridoid compounds. Food Chemistry, 68, 283287.
Aparicio, R., Morales, M. T., & Alonso, M. V. (1996). Relationship between volatile
compounds and sensory attributes of olive oils by the sensory wheel. JAOCS,
73(10), 12531264.
Aparicio, R., Morales, M. T., & Alonso, V. (1997). Authentication of European virgin
olive oils by their chemical compounds, sensory attributes, and consumers
attitudes. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 45, 10761083.
Bech, A. C., Hansen, M., & Wienberg, L. (2009). Application of House of Quality in
translation of consumer needs into sensory attributes measurable by
descriptive sensory analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 8(56), 329348.
Beltrn, G., Ruano, M. T., Jimnez, A., Uceda, M., & Aguilera, M. P. (2007). Evaluation
of virgin olive oil bitterness by total phenol content analysis. European Journal of
Lipid Science and Technology, 109(3), 193197.
Bendini, A., Cerretani, L., Carrasco-Pancorbo, A., Gomez-Caravaca, A. M., Segura-
Carretero, A., Fernandez-Gutierrez, A., et al. (2007). Phenolic molecules in virgin
olive oils: A survey of their sensory properties, health effects, antioxidant
activity and analytical methods. An overview of the last decade. Molecules,
12(8), 16791719.
Caporale, G., Policastro, S., Carlucci, A., & Monteleone, E. (2006). Consumer
expectations for sensory properties in virgin olive oils. Food Quality and
Preferences, 17, 116125.
Cardello, A. V. (1995). Food quality: Relativity, context and consumer expectations.
Food Quality and Preference, 6(3), 163170.
Dekhili, S., & dHauteville, F. (2009). Effect of the region of origin on the perceived
quality of olive oil: An experimental approach using a control group. Food
Quality and Preference, 20(7), 525532.
Delgado, C., & Guinard, J. X. (submitted for publication-a). Sensory properties of
Californian and imported extra virgin olive oil. Journal of Food Science.
Delgado, C., & Guinard, J. X. (submitted for publication-b). Quality mapping A new
approach to the investigation of sensory quality: A case study with Extra Virgin
Olive Oil. Journal of Sensory Studies.
Drewnowski, A. (1997). Taste preferences and food intake. Annual Review of
Nutrition, 17(1), 237253.
Drewnowski, A., & Gomez-Carneros, C. (2000). Bitter taste, phytonutrients, and the
consumer: A review. Am J Clin Nutr, 72(6), 14241435.
Finotti, E., Bersani, A. M., & Bersani, E. (2007). Total quality indexes for extra-virgin
olive oils. Journal of Food Quality, 30(6), 911931.
Fotopoulos, C., & Krystallis, A. (2001). Are quality labels a real marketing advantage?
A conjoint application on Greek PDO protected olive oil. Journal of International
Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 12(1), 122.
Gacula, M. C., & Singh, J. (1984). Statistical methods in food and consumer research.
Orlando: Academic Press.
Garca-Mesa, J. A., Pereira-Caro, G., Fernndez-Hernndez, A., Garca-Ortz Civantos,
C., & Mateos, R. (2008). Inuence of lipid matrix in the bitterness perception of
virgin olive oil. Food Quality and Preference, 19(4), 421430.
Guinard, J.-X., Zoumas-Morse, C., Dietz, J., Goldberg, S., Holz, M., Heck, B., et al.
(1996). Does consumption of beer, alcohol and bitter substances affect
perception of bitterness? Physiology and Behavior, 59(4/5), 625631.
International Olive Council. (2008). Olive products market report summary. Market
Commentary.
Kim, U.-K., Breslin, P. A. S., Reed, D., & Drayna, D. (2004). Genetics of human taste
perception. Journal of Dental Research, 83(6), 448453.
Krystallis, A., & Ness, M. (2003). Motivational and cognitive structures of Greek
consumers in the purchase of quality food products. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 16(2), 736.
Krystallis, A., & Ness, M. (2005). Consumer preferences for quality foods from a
South European perspective: A conjoint analysis implementation on Greek olive
oil. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 8(2), 6291.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (1998). Sensory evaluation of food. NY: Springer.
Lawless, H. T., & Liu, Y.-F. (1997). Evaluation of wine quality using a small-panel
hedonic scaling method. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12(4), 317332.
Martnez, M. G., Aragons, Z., & Poole, N. (2002). A repositioning strategy for olive
oil in the UK market. Agribusiness, 18(2), 163180.
Matsatsinis, N. F., Grigoroudis, E., & Samaras, A. P. (2007). Comparing distributors
judgements to buyers preferences: A consumer value analysis in the Greek
olive oil market. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35(5),
342362.
 C. Delgado, J.-X. Guinard / Food Quality and Preference 22 (2011) 213225
Medeiros, D. M., & Hampton, M. (2007). Olive oil and health benets. In R. E. C.
Wildman (Ed.), Handbook of nutraceuticals and functional foods. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Morales, M. T., Alonso, M. V., Rios, J. J., & Aparicio, R. (1995). virgin olive oil aroma:
Relationship between volatile compounds and sensory attributes by
chemometrics. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 43, 29252931.
Peryam, D. R., & Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring food
preferences. Food Technology (September), 9, 14.
Sandalidou, E., & Baourakis, G. (2002). Customers perspectives on the quality of
organic olive oil in Greece. A satisfaction evaluation approach. British Food
Journal, 104(3/4/5), 391406.
Santosa, M. (2010). Analysis of sensory and non-sensory factors mitigating consumer
behavior: A case study with extra virgin olive oil. PhD Dissertation, Food Science:
University of California, Davis.
Servili, M., Selvaggini, R., Esposto, S., Taticchi, A., Montedoro, G., & Morozzi, G.
(2004). Health and sensory properties of virgin olive oil hydrophilic phenols:
Agronomic and technological aspects of production that affect their occurrence
in the oil. Journal of Chromatography A, 1054(12), 113127.
225
Stefani, G., Romano, D., & Cavicchi, A. (2006). Consumer expectations, liking and
willingness to pay for specialty foods: Do sensory characteristics tell the whole
story? Food Quality and Preference, 17(12), 5362.
Trichopoulos, D., & Lagiou, P. (2007). Mediterranean diet and overall mortality
differences in the European Union. Public Health Nutrition, 7(07), 949951.
Tripoli, E., Giammanco, M., Tabacchi, G., Di Majo, D., Giammanco, S., & La Guardia, M.
(2004). The phenolic compounds of olive oil: Structure, biological activity
and benecial effects on human health. Nutrition Research Reviews, 18(01),
98112.
van der Lans, I. A., van Itters, K., De Cicco, A., & Loseby, M. (2001). The role
of the region of origin and EU certicates of origin in consumer evaluation
of food products. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4), 451
477.
Vossen, P. M. (2007). Current opportunities in the California olive oil industry. Plant
and Soil Conference of the California Chapter of the American Society of Agronomy.
Sacramento, California: Radisson Hotel.
Zampounis, V. (2006). Olive oil in the world market. In D. Boskou (Ed.), Olive oil
chemistry and technology (pp. 2139). AOCS Press.