The Role of Context Parameters in The Validity of Data

Ecological Validity and Consumer Judgment

The way to see ecological validity and its potential effects on consumer judgment has direct methodological implications. In the field of sensory and consumer science, studies looking at the validity of contextualized experiments fall into two categories: those that approach the issue of ecological validity as a whole (the experimental context consists of a combination of the environment and the task performed, with attempts to keep most of them as close to natural as possible) and those that focus on specific factors that are found to have an impact on the measures, trying to make these more ecologically valid. This dual approach highlights the complexity of accurately assessing consumer behavior in varied settings.

The Role of Context Parameters in The Validity of Data

The studies following a global approach compare scores on food liking and choices in different natural environments (restaurants, canteens, prisons) with those obtained in laboratory or central location settings, showing differences in hedonic scores (Meiselman, 1996). Those differences are usually related to the degree of discrimination among products – consumers being more discriminant in natural settings than in laboratory settings – or to the higher scores in natural settings versus laboratory settings. The implications of these findings suggest that natural environments may offer a more accurate reflection of consumer preferences.

On the other hand, the studies focusing on context variables compare how the addition of contextual variables in controlled experiments can affect food liking and choice. We may first notice that several classifications of contextual variables have been proposed: Rozin & Tuorila (1993) divide contextual variables into either product and non-product variables and subdivide them into simultaneous and temporal contextual factors; Meiselman (1996) proposes to distinguish between three categories of variables (the situation, the individual, and the product); whereas Stroebele & De Castro (2004) divide the contextual variables into social context variables, physical surroundings, time-related characteristics, and distraction and/or television viewing. From these studies, it is difficult to fully disentangle the various factors and isolate a specific context effect. The relevance of those contextual variables thus remains unclear. To date, the lack of knowledge of the combined effects of these contextual variables on consumers’ responses compromises the ability to identify causal relationships through experimental approaches. This complexity underscores the importance of further research to clarify these interactions.

In practice, a consequence of this is that participants in a test may not perceive the study context the way the researcher assumes they would. This questions the ecological validity as defined by Bronfenbrenner (1977). Understanding this misalignment can lead to more refined methodologies that account for participant perception.

Implications for Experimental Design

The issue seen as a whole would naturally lead to global changes in the test design, while dividing context into the separate variables would bring targeted improvements to the experimental setup, keeping the rest of the task and environment potentially non-ecological. This dual strategy could enhance the precision and applicability of consumer research findings.

References:

• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531.
• Meiselman, H. L. (1996). The contextual basis for food acceptance, food choice and food intake: The food, the situation and the individual. In H. L. Meiselman & H. J. H. MacFie (Eds.), Food Choice, Acceptance and Consumption (pp. 239-263). Springer.
• Rozin, P., & Tuorila, H. (1993). Simultaneous and temporal contextual factors in food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 4(1-2), 29-32.
• Stroebele, N., & De Castro, J. M. (2004). Effect of ambience on food intake and food choice. Nutrition, 20(9), 821-838.