Exploring differences between central located test and home use test in a living lab context

Karin Maria Elisabet Wendin; Åström Annika; Ståhlbröst Anna

doi:10.1111/ijcs.12171

Exploring differences between central located test and home use test in a living lab context

Karin Maria Elisabet Wendin^*, Åström Annika, Ståhlbröst Anna

^*Corresponding author for this work

Sensory and Consumer Science

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The concept of Living Labs (LLs) has evolved to support the creation of experience-based development of innovations in real-life, user-driven and open environments. Two types of consumer product tests used generally are central location tests (CLT) and home use tests (HUT) where the acceptability or liking of a product or group of products is determined together with the view of whether one product is preferred over other products. This article explores the similarities and differences between CLT and HUT test results in a LL context. In both settings, the acceptance of five flavoured chocolate bars was evaluated for appearance, odour, taste/flavour, texture and overall liking. Apart from the mean values of liking in the two tests, data were analysed to identify consumer segments. Qualitative data were also collected by asking for consumer comments on the tested samples. The results show that independent of test method the bars were evaluated equally and all accepted by the consumers. A clear difference between CLT and HUT testing was that CLT consumers significantly differed from the HUT consumers, giving the test samples lower scores. For example, the mean values of the overall acceptance scores given by HUT consumers varied between 6.0 and 6.6, while for CLT consumers the corresponding values varied from 5.4 to 5.9. Another difference was the number of comments from consumers. CLT consumers richly commented on the products in a verbose way, while HUT consumers used the opportunity to comment very sparingly. Considering the cluster analysis as yet another difference between the testing methods, clusters from the CLT were more distinct and the number was higher with five clusters in CLT and four in HUT. Clusters where consumers liked all the products in both test settings were twice as many for HUT than in CLT. Applying the LL approach, there is a need for methods and approaches that capture a rich picture of consumers during test performance without being intrusive or obstructive of activities and context. The approach offers the opportunity for companies to have consumers not only test products but also offer input that can stimulate new innovations and give consumers more power and influence.

Original language	English
Journal	International Journal of Consumer Studies
Volume	39
Issue number	3
Pages (from-to)	230-238
Number of pages	9
ISSN	1470-6423
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12171
Publication status	Published - 2015

Keywords

Central located test
Chocolate bar
Consumer
Home use test
Living lab
Product acceptance/liking

Access to Document

10.1111/ijcs.12171

Cite this

@article{63fde071eb5f43538056b2343ce6bae9,

title = "Exploring differences between central located test and home use test in a living lab context",

abstract = "The concept of Living Labs (LLs) has evolved to support the creation of experience-based development of innovations in real-life, user-driven and open environments. Two types of consumer product tests used generally are central location tests (CLT) and home use tests (HUT) where the acceptability or liking of a product or group of products is determined together with the view of whether one product is preferred over other products. This article explores the similarities and differences between CLT and HUT test results in a LL context. In both settings, the acceptance of five flavoured chocolate bars was evaluated for appearance, odour, taste/flavour, texture and overall liking. Apart from the mean values of liking in the two tests, data were analysed to identify consumer segments. Qualitative data were also collected by asking for consumer comments on the tested samples. The results show that independent of test method the bars were evaluated equally and all accepted by the consumers. A clear difference between CLT and HUT testing was that CLT consumers significantly differed from the HUT consumers, giving the test samples lower scores. For example, the mean values of the overall acceptance scores given by HUT consumers varied between 6.0 and 6.6, while for CLT consumers the corresponding values varied from 5.4 to 5.9. Another difference was the number of comments from consumers. CLT consumers richly commented on the products in a verbose way, while HUT consumers used the opportunity to comment very sparingly. Considering the cluster analysis as yet another difference between the testing methods, clusters from the CLT were more distinct and the number was higher with five clusters in CLT and four in HUT. Clusters where consumers liked all the products in both test settings were twice as many for HUT than in CLT. Applying the LL approach, there is a need for methods and approaches that capture a rich picture of consumers during test performance without being intrusive or obstructive of activities and context. The approach offers the opportunity for companies to have consumers not only test products but also offer input that can stimulate new innovations and give consumers more power and influence.",

keywords = "Central located test, Chocolate bar, Consumer, Home use test, Living lab, Product acceptance/liking",

author = "Wendin, {Karin Maria Elisabet} and {\AA}str{\"o}m Annika and St{\aa}hlbr{\"o}st Anna",

year = "2015",

doi = "10.1111/ijcs.12171",

language = "English",

volume = "39",

pages = "230--238",

journal = "International Journal of Consumer Studies",

issn = "1470-6423",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring differences between central located test and home use test in a living lab context

AU - Wendin, Karin Maria Elisabet

AU - Annika, Åström

AU - Anna, Ståhlbröst

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - The concept of Living Labs (LLs) has evolved to support the creation of experience-based development of innovations in real-life, user-driven and open environments. Two types of consumer product tests used generally are central location tests (CLT) and home use tests (HUT) where the acceptability or liking of a product or group of products is determined together with the view of whether one product is preferred over other products. This article explores the similarities and differences between CLT and HUT test results in a LL context. In both settings, the acceptance of five flavoured chocolate bars was evaluated for appearance, odour, taste/flavour, texture and overall liking. Apart from the mean values of liking in the two tests, data were analysed to identify consumer segments. Qualitative data were also collected by asking for consumer comments on the tested samples. The results show that independent of test method the bars were evaluated equally and all accepted by the consumers. A clear difference between CLT and HUT testing was that CLT consumers significantly differed from the HUT consumers, giving the test samples lower scores. For example, the mean values of the overall acceptance scores given by HUT consumers varied between 6.0 and 6.6, while for CLT consumers the corresponding values varied from 5.4 to 5.9. Another difference was the number of comments from consumers. CLT consumers richly commented on the products in a verbose way, while HUT consumers used the opportunity to comment very sparingly. Considering the cluster analysis as yet another difference between the testing methods, clusters from the CLT were more distinct and the number was higher with five clusters in CLT and four in HUT. Clusters where consumers liked all the products in both test settings were twice as many for HUT than in CLT. Applying the LL approach, there is a need for methods and approaches that capture a rich picture of consumers during test performance without being intrusive or obstructive of activities and context. The approach offers the opportunity for companies to have consumers not only test products but also offer input that can stimulate new innovations and give consumers more power and influence.

AB - The concept of Living Labs (LLs) has evolved to support the creation of experience-based development of innovations in real-life, user-driven and open environments. Two types of consumer product tests used generally are central location tests (CLT) and home use tests (HUT) where the acceptability or liking of a product or group of products is determined together with the view of whether one product is preferred over other products. This article explores the similarities and differences between CLT and HUT test results in a LL context. In both settings, the acceptance of five flavoured chocolate bars was evaluated for appearance, odour, taste/flavour, texture and overall liking. Apart from the mean values of liking in the two tests, data were analysed to identify consumer segments. Qualitative data were also collected by asking for consumer comments on the tested samples. The results show that independent of test method the bars were evaluated equally and all accepted by the consumers. A clear difference between CLT and HUT testing was that CLT consumers significantly differed from the HUT consumers, giving the test samples lower scores. For example, the mean values of the overall acceptance scores given by HUT consumers varied between 6.0 and 6.6, while for CLT consumers the corresponding values varied from 5.4 to 5.9. Another difference was the number of comments from consumers. CLT consumers richly commented on the products in a verbose way, while HUT consumers used the opportunity to comment very sparingly. Considering the cluster analysis as yet another difference between the testing methods, clusters from the CLT were more distinct and the number was higher with five clusters in CLT and four in HUT. Clusters where consumers liked all the products in both test settings were twice as many for HUT than in CLT. Applying the LL approach, there is a need for methods and approaches that capture a rich picture of consumers during test performance without being intrusive or obstructive of activities and context. The approach offers the opportunity for companies to have consumers not only test products but also offer input that can stimulate new innovations and give consumers more power and influence.

KW - Central located test

KW - Chocolate bar

KW - Consumer

KW - Home use test

KW - Living lab

KW - Product acceptance/liking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84926682988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ijcs.12171

DO - 10.1111/ijcs.12171

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:84926682988

SN - 1470-6423

VL - 39

SP - 230

EP - 238

JO - International Journal of Consumer Studies

JF - International Journal of Consumer Studies

IS - 3

ER -

Exploring differences between central located test and home use test in a living lab context

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this