Meat Science 95 (2013) 652–657

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Meat Science

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /meatsc i

Factors affecting dry-cured ham consumer acceptability

R. Morales a,⁎, L. Guerrero b, A.P.S. Aguiar a, M.D. Guàrdia b, P. Gou b

a Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias INIA, Ruta 5 Norte Km 8, P.O. Box 24-0, Osorno, Chileb IRTA, Finca Camps i Armet, E-17121 Monells, Girona, Spain

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 64 334880.E-mail address: rmorales@inia.cl (R. Morales).

0309-1740/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.05.012

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 February 2013Received in revised form 11 March 2013Accepted 10 May 2013

Keywords:ExpectationsConsumer preferencesTextureDry-cured ham

The objectives of the present study were (1) to compare the relative importance of price, processing time,texture and intramuscular fat in purchase intention of dry-cured ham through conjoint analysis, (2) to eval-uate the effect of dry-cured ham appearance on consumer expectations, and (3) to describe the consumersensory preferences of dry-cured ham using external preference mapping. Texture and processing timeinfluenced the consumer preferences in conjoint analysis. Red colour intensity, colour uniformity, externalfat and white film presence/absence influenced consumer expectations. The consumer disliked hams withbitter and metallic flavour and with excessive saltiness and piquantness. Differences between expected andexperienced acceptability were found, which indicates that the visual preference of consumers does notallow them to select a dry-cured ham that satisfies their sensory preferences of flavour and texture.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Food perception and selection is a multifactor process where ourfive senses, physiological, psychological aspects and extrinsic factorsparticipate. All these factors may influence consumer preferencesand lead to the acceptance or rejection of a food (Axelson &Brinberg, 1989; Stafleu, Graaf, Staveren, & Schroots, 1991/2).

Dry-cured ham is an important food product in the Mediterraneanarea. Visual impressions based on perceived intrinsic and extrinsiccues are important inputs that may generate quality expectations inmeat products (Bello Acebrón & Calvo Dopico, 2000). In dry-curedham, Resano, Sanjuán, Cilla, Roncalés, and Albisu (2010) found inSpanish and French dry-cured hams that consumer and trainedpanellist gave high values for crumbliness, softness, flavour andsweetness whereas high mould odour, high saltiness and crust werevalued as negative by both panels. In addition, they found a certaindegree of heterogeneity in consumers' preferences, highlightingclusters with opposite liking trends. On the other hand, Norwegianconsumers preferred lower salt level and longer ageing of hamsthan a higher salt level and shorter ageing time (Hersleth, Lengard,Verbeke, Guerrero, & Næs, 2011) whereas the Spanish consumerspaid special attention to appearance, especially, colour and fatcontent of the dry-cured ham (Guàrdia, Aguiar, Claret, Arnau, &Guerrero, 2010). In a survey study on butchers and consumersMorales, Guerrero, Claret, Guàrdia, and Gou (2008), found thatbutchers considered salty taste and their experience as the factorsmost important that affect the consumer's decision to purchase,whereas the consumers consider sensory attributes (aged flavour,

rights reserved.

smell, intramuscular fat, texture colour and salty taste) more impor-tant than extrinsic characteristics when purchasing dry-cured ham(Morales et al., 2008). However, little information has focused onhow sensory properties may affect dry-cured ham preference.

The objectives of the present study were (1) to compare the rela-tive importance of price, processing time, texture and intramuscularfat in purchase intention of dry-cured ham through conjoint analysis,(2) to evaluate the effect of dry-cured ham appearance on consumerexpectations, and (3) to describe the consumer sensory preferencesof dry-cured ham using external preference mapping.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Ham selection and sample preparation

Six raw hams with different pH levels (ranging from 5.5 to 6.2)were selected from a batch of 68 hams. The pH was measured onthe semimembranosus muscle at 24 h post-mortem in abattoir. Theywere salted for different periods of time (6 d or 14 d) in order toachieve different salt contents and subsequently were processed intraditional way (approximately 12 months of process), i.e., all thehams were salted at 36 h post-mortem with a mixture (per kg ofraw ham): 0.5 g KNO3, 0.3 g NaNO2 and 10 g NaCl, and subsequentlywere covered with dry salt and piled up at 3 °C ± 2 °C for 6 d or 14 ddepending on the salting treatment. In order to increase the differ-ences in salt content among the different salting treatments, theheaviest hams within each pH group (12.5 kg to 14 kg) wereassigned to the 6-day-salting treatment whereas the lightest ones(9.5 kg to 11 kg) to the 14-day-salting treatment. After salting, thehams were washed with cold water and hung in a post-saltingroom at 2 °C ± 2 °C and 78% ± 2% RH for 62 d (resting period).

Table 2Socio-demographic characteristics of consumer participants.

(n = 80) %

Ageb30 20.030–65 61.3>65 18.7

GenderMale 48.8Female 51.2

Education levelPrimary education 47.5High school/professional training 32.5University graduate 20.0

Table 3Attribute levels included in the cards presented to the consumers in the conjointanalysis.

Cards Price (€/kg) Texture Intramuscularfat content

Processing time(months)

653R. Morales et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 652–657

Subsequently, the hams were dried: 34 d at 11 °C ± 2 °C and 70%–80% RH; 10 d at 12 °C ± 2 °C and 60%–75% RH; 106 d at 14 °C ±2 °C and 50%–65% RH; 126 d at 18 °C ± 2 °C and 40%–55% RH; and10 d at 18 °C ± 2 °C and 40%–55% RH. The lean surface of the firsthams that reached a weight loss of 28.5% was covered with a layerof melted fat to slow down the drying rate. Ham weight losses weremonitored until achieving a final weight loss of 33%.

The combination of different pH and salt content was selected inorder to obtain clearly different samples regarding sensory character-istics (Arnau, Guerrero, & Gou, 1997; Guerrero, Arnau, Maneja, & Gou,1993). The pH values and NaCl contents of hams used in the presentstudy are shown in Table 1.

At the end of the drying process, the hams were boned, faced levelwith the head of femur and sliced (1-mm-thick) perpendicularly tothe femur axis from the distal part. The first 14 slices were used fordescriptive sensory analysis (trained assessors) and the rest of them(80 slices) were individually vacuum-packed in skin trays for expec-tations and preference mapping. The sequence of slicing was stan-dardized to avoid the influence of slice position in the consumerperception. i.e., the first consumer evaluated the first slice in allhams, and so forth.

The remains of each ham were minced, vacuum-packed and keptat −18 °C ± 2 °C for NaCl content analysis. The NaCl content wasmeasured using a Technicon™ AutoAnalyzer™ II (Bran+LuebbeGmbH, Norderstedt, Germany) based on the photometric method de-scribed by Zall, Fisher, and Garner (1956).

2.2. Sensory descriptive analysis

A seven-member trained panel performed the sensory analysis inone session. The assessors were selected and generically trained fol-lowing ASTM (1981) and ISO standards and all of them had morethan eight years of experience in quantitative descriptive analysis ofdry-cured ham. Each assessor received two slices and evaluated visu-al appearance. Afterwards, they assessed flavour of the first sliceand texture of the second one. The descriptors of visual appearance(Red colour intensity, colour Uniformity, external fat, marbling andscoring of white film), flavour (metallic, sweetness, saltiness, pi-quantness, bitterness, matured and aged) and texture (hardness,pastiness, crumbliness, adhesiveness and fibrousness) were quanti-fied using a non-structured scale ranging from 0 (absence) to 10(maximum intensity; Guerrero, Guàrdia, & Arnau, 2005). The sensorylaboratory was designed according to ISO standards with separatebooths, and the samples were evaluated blocking the order of presenta-tion and the first-order carry-over effect (MacFie, Bratchell, Greenhoff,& Vallis, 1989). The average scores of the panel for each sample werecalculated.

2.3. Consumer test

Eighty consumers were recruited in Barcelona and Girona prov-inces (Catalonia-Spain) in terms of age, gender and education levelin accordance with social-demographic characteristics of Cataloniathrough quota sampling (IDESCAT, 2006). Social-demographic char-acteristics of consumers are shown in Table 2. The study was carriedout between October and November 2006.

Table 1pH and NaCl content of dry-cured ham used.

Hams salted for 6 d Hams salted for 14 d

A B C D E F

pHa 5.59 5.82 6.18 5.65 5.72 5.92NaCl content (%) 4.66 4.50 4.01 6.45 5.83 5.77

a pH measured on the semimembranosus (SM) muscle at 24 h post-mortem.

2.3.1. Conjoint analysisThe different attributes and levels were selected: processing time

(9 months, 12 months and 18 months), intramuscular fat (high, in-termediate and low), texture (“soft”, “not soft nor hard” and “hard”)and price (12 €/kg, 25 €/kg and 44 €/kg). By combining four attri-butes and three levels per attribute, 81 different profiles wereobtained, which was considered an elevated number of products forconsumer testing. Therefore, an incomplete factorial design wasused thus reducing the number of combinations to nine. Additionallyone different card was created. Thus, a set of ten cards with hypothet-ical dry-cured ham product was designed (Table 3). Examples ofcards used in the present study are shown in Fig. 1. Consumerswere individually interviewed at their homes where they receivedthese cards and were asked to sort them according to their preference:from the most appreciated one (score 1) to the least appreciated one(score 10). This test was also carried out following a balanced block de-sign for position and carry over effects (MacFie et al., 1989).

2.3.2. Expected acceptabilityEach consumer was interviewed at home by one of the authors of

the present study. The consumer received a vacuum-packed slicefrom each ham (n= 6), one by one, in a skin tray codified with ran-dom three-digit number. Then, he/she was encouraged to evaluatethe expected acceptability for each sample without opening thetray. The expected acceptability is the result of visual impressionsbased on perceived sensory attributes.

The expected acceptability of consumers was quantified using anine-point hedonic scale from “I expect to dislike extremely” (score1) to “I expect to like extremely” (score 9).

2.3.3. Experienced acceptabilityAnother set of the six samples was provided with random codes

different to the previous evaluation so that the consumer could notrecognize or memorize the codes of the samples between the two

1 44 Medium High 92 44 Hard Low 123 25 Soft High 124 25 Hard Intermediate 95 25 Medium Low 186 12 Hard High 187 12 Soft Low 98 44 Soft Intermediate 189 12 Medium Intermediate 1210 44 Medium Intermediate 18

Fig. 1. Examples of cards used in the conjoint analysis.

654 R. Morales et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 652–657

evaluations. In this case, the order of presentation of the samples wasdifferent to the first exposure. Then consumers opened, tasted theslices one by one and assessed experienced acceptability, textureand salty taste of each sample provided. Experienced acceptability isthe result of sensory evaluation of the product at the moment ofconsumption.

The experienced acceptability of consumers was quantified usinga nine-point hedonic scale from “dislike extremely” (score 1) to“like extremely” (score 9). Likewise, a nine-point ideal scale wasused for measurements of the consumers' perception of the textureand salty taste, where value five indicated that the attribute was per-ceived as ideal, below five was less than ideal and above five wasmore than ideal. The samples were provided according to a balancedblock design for position and carry over effects (MacFie et al., 1989).

Table 4

2.4. Statistical analysis

2.4.1. Conjoint analysisLinear multiple regression (TRANSREG) was applied to analyse

conjoint analysis data and relative importance for each attribute andutilities were obtained.

Means of visual, flavour and texture evaluations of hams by trained panel.

Descriptors Hams saltedfor 6 d

Hams saltedfor 14 d

Mean Median Min Max

A B C D E F

VisualRed colour intensity 6.1 5.9 6.9 6.7 5.5 6.2 6.2 6.2 5.5 6.9Marbling 2.5 3.1 2.4 4.1 2.8 4.0 3.2 3.0 2.4 4.1External fat 2.5 1.8 2.0 4.5 2.8 3.1 2.8 2.7 1.8 4.5Colour uniformity 4.6 4.8 5.8 3.8 4.7 7.4 5.2 4.8 3.8 7.4White film 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.0 1.5

FlavourMetallic flavour 1.2 0.3 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 1.2Sweetness 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.4Saltiness 1.8 2.1 1.5 3.5 3.4 3.2 2.6 2.7 1.5 3.5Piquantness 1.2 1.5 1.0 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.0 2.2Bitterness 1.1 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 1.1Matured flavour 1.4 1.8 1.0 1.4 2.3 2.5 1.7 1.6 1.0 2.5Aged flavour 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.8

TextureAdhesiveness 3.1 2.7 3.9 3.2 1.0 1.7 2.6 2.9 1.0 3.9Hardness 3.7 4.6 3.4 4.0 4.7 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.4 4.7Crumbliness 5.2 4.2 5.5 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.0 5.1 4.2 5.5Pastiness 3.0 1.3 2.5 2.2 0.5 1.5 1.8 1.9 0.5 3.0Fibrousness 2.3 2.8 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.3 3.0

Scale from 0 to 10.

2.4.2. Expected and experienced acceptabilityThe ideal scores of texture and saltiness were then converted by

the formula (score-5) to an ordinal scale for statistical analysis(Juhl, Bech, Bristensen, Poulsen, & Hanse, 1998).

A one-way ANOVA was performed on expected and experiencedacceptability, texture and salty taste ratings. Differences amonghams were tested with the Tukey test. The differences between theexpected acceptability and the experienced acceptability were testedwith the paired t-test.

An external preference mapping (PREFMAP) was carried out to re-gress the preferences of the consumers onto the Principal ComponentAnalysis (PCA) of sensory descriptors obtained over the mean valuesof the trained panel. Vectorial and (+) ideal point and (−) anti-idealpoint circular models were tested. With the circular model it is possi-ble to trace isopreference circular lines around the ideal or anti-idealpoint (Schlich & McEwan, 1992). The positive symbol shows the loca-tion of the ideal point for consumer whereas the negative symbolshows the location of the least-liked (anti-ideal) point for consumer.

The PCA and PREFMAP were carried out with the XLSTAT 2011 sta-tistical package (Addinsoft, France) whereas ANOVA and TRANSREGwere performed using the SAS (SAS Institute, 2001).

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Conjoint analysis

Texture was the most important attribute (35.1%), followed byprocessing time (23.3%), intramuscular fat (22.8%) and price (18.8%;Table 5).

The consumers preferred medium texture and they rejected thesoft and hard texture. Rovira, Ordoñez, and Jaime (1996) reportedthat the texture was also important for the consumer. Similarly,Morales et al. (2008) found negative consumer attitudes towardssoft and pasty textures.

The consumer preferred the ham with higher processing time(18 months). In dry-cured ham a long processing time is relatedwith aged flavour, aroma and appreciated texture characteristics,and the processing time is also used as quality criteria by “Fundaciónde Jamón Serrano”. In this system the longer processing time equatesto a higher quality category (Fundación Jamón Serrano, 2008). In ad-dition, a dry-cured ham with a long processing time showed moretypical dry-cured flavours than ham with shorter processing time(Flores, Ingram, Bett, Toldrá, & Spanier, 1997).

Although there is a general tendency to reduce fat consumption inthe meat product (Resurreccion, 2003) for nutritional aspects(Kubberød, Ueland, Rødbotten, Westad, & Risvik, 2002), intramuscu-lar fat is important in dry-cured ham flavour development (López etal., 1992). The consumers preferred intermediate level of intramuscu-lar fat probably because they believe there is an optimal level, takinginto accounts both nutritional and flavour characteristics.

Regarding the price, the consumer preferred an intermediateprice. Dry-cured ham is a traditional product related with high qual-ity. This could be the reason why the consumer did not select thedry-cured ham at the lowest price. Price has a dual role in consumerdecision-making (Jaeger, 2006). Briefly, a higher price can result ina lower purchase intention, whereas a higher price could be per-ceived as positive regarding product quality, which, in turn leads tohigher purchase intention (Bello Acebrón & Calvo Dopico, 2000;Chang & Wildt, 1996). In addition, consumers are normally averseto recognizing the real influence of price on their purchase decisions.This is mainly due to the important social and status effect whichprice represents (Guerrero, Aguiar, Guàrdia, Claret, & Arnau, 2007).

Table 5Estimated utility and relative importance (%) of the attribute levels of the conjointanalysis.

Attributes

R2 0.171Intercept 5.331Price Importance (%) 18.80

12 €/kg −0.29525 €/kg 0.62244 €/kg −0.327

Texture Importance (%) 35.11Soft −0.985Medium 0.786Hard 0.199

Intramuscular fat Importance (%) 22.76Low −0.392Medium 0.756High −0.365

Processing time Importance (%) 23.349 months −0.69812 months 0.21918 months 0.479

655R. Morales et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 652–657

3.2. Expected and experienced acceptability

C and D hams (see description in Table 1) had the highest level ofexpected acceptability, but they had the worst level of experiencedacceptability (Table 6). In contrast, A and B hams had a higher levelof experienced acceptability than level of expected acceptability. Bham showed the highest level of experienced acceptability. The Eand F hams had an intermediate level of expected and experiencedacceptability.

In general, all hams were considered soft, i.e. lower than the idealpoint, likewise the hams of low salting time were evaluated below theideal point of saltiness whereas the hams of high salting wereassessed above the ideal point. A and C hams were the farthest fromthe ideal point for texture and saltiness, respectively whereas E hamwas the closest to the ideal point for both attributes.

The visual results from the trained assessors could explain higherconsumer's expectation of C and D hams (Table 4). C ham did notstand out in red colour, marbling and colour intensity. Also, whitefilm was not found in this ham by the trained panel. The intermediateappearance of C could have been positively valuated by consumers.D ham had the highest value of redness (Table 4). Colour has beenshown to affect people's perception of a variety of different foods anddrinks (Delwiche, 2004; Zampini, Sanabria, Phillips, & Spence, 2007).In dry-cured ham, consumers tend to prefer the darker-red-colour(Rovira et al., 1996).

Despite the highest expected acceptability, D and C hams had thelowest experienced acceptability. This could be due to C hambeing con-sidered the softest and the least salted when compared to the ideal(Table 6). Additionally, this ham was the sweetest and most adhesive

Table 6Means of expected and experienced acceptability, texture and salty taste ratings.

Hams salted for 6 d

A B C

Expected acceptabilityB 5.2d 5.8c 6.6a

Experienced acceptabilityC 5.7b,c 6.3a 5.2c

P-valueD b0.05 b0.05 b0.00TextureE −1.4b,c −1.3b −1.9c

SaltinessE −0.9b −0.6b −1.0b

A Root mean square error.B 9-Point scale where 1 = “I expect to dislike extremely” to 9 = “I expect to like extremC 9-Point scale where 1 = “dislike extremely” to 9 = “like extremely”.D P-value for difference between expected acceptability and experienced acceptability.E Ideal 9-point scale where 5 = ideal point (score-5).abc Within row, means with a common letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05).

according to the assessors (Table 4). In this respect, high pastiness andadhesiveness values were correlated with decreasing consumer andpanel acceptability (Cilla, Martínez, Beltrán, & Roncalés, 2005).

D ham was a similar distance from the ideal point for texture asthe other samples (Table 6). However, it was the saltiest one inconsumer evaluations, and the saltiest and most piquant accordingto the trained panel (Table 4). NaCl is an essential ingredient inprocessed meat products, contributing to the water-holding capacity,colour and flavour, however, a high NaCl concentration in a productcan produce irritation in oral mucus (Carstens et al., 2002) influenc-ing the food acceptability. In addition, the consumers showed a posi-tive attitude towards reduced sodium meat products (Guàrdia,Guerrero, Gelabert, Gou, & Arnau, 2006).

The A and B hams had low expected acceptability. For A ham, thisresult could be explained by the presence of white film (Table 4).Arnau, Guerrero, Hortós and García-Regueiro (1996) stated thatSpanish consumers normally complain about the presence of whitefilm on dry-cured ham. B ham showed an intermediate expected ac-ceptability and the highest level of experienced acceptability, B hamhad the lowest red colour and the lowest external fat (Table 3),which may have been responsible for generating an intermediateexpected acceptability. But, in both A and B hams the experiencedacceptability was higher than the expected acceptability.

A ham was less salty and softer than ideal and the pastiestaccording to the trained assessors. The difference between expectedand experienced acceptability could be due to its visual rejection pro-duced by the presence of white film. B ham had the highest experi-enced acceptability and was closer to the ideal point of salty tastethan other hams salted for 6 d (Table 6). This is consistent with theresults found in external preference mapping (Fig. 2). The circularmodel positive (+) ideal point is shown. The positive symbol showsthe location of the ideal ham for consumer. In general, the consumerpreferred the B ham. They disliked hams with bitterness, metallic fla-vour, saltiness and piquantness. Concerning texture, the consumerliked neither pasty/adhesive hams nor harder ones. They seem to pre-fer an intermediate texture as was also demonstrated in the conjointanalysis (Table 4).

In E and F hams, consumer expectations were confirmed. E ham hadthe highest colour intensity and high red colour (Table 4). However, ithad the highest colour heterogeneity that could have influenced theexpected acceptability. At the same time, E ham was the closest to theideal point in texture and saltiness (Table 6) and this ham had thehighest aged flavour and had the lowest pastiness and adhesiveness(Table 4). On the other hand, F hamhad the highestmarbling accordingto the trained assessors, and the highest matured flavour.

When comparing consumers' responses and the sensory evalua-tion provided by the trained panel mainly the colour uniformity, ex-ternal fat and white film presence/absence seem to be the principalfactor in consumers' expectations (Fig. 3). However, based only onthe appearance of a dry-cured ham, consumers were not able to

Hams salted for 14 d RMSEA

D E F

6.4a,b 5.9b,c 5.9b,c 1.355.3b,c 5.8a,b 5.9a,b 1.49

1 b0.001 N.S. N.S. –

−1.0a,b −0.5a −1.3b 1.230.3a 0.2a 0.2a 1.31

ely”.

Fig. 2. External preference map of combined consumer data with flavour and texturedescriptors (assessors). Average of consumer experienced acceptability is identified(▲) with a circular model positive (+). Hams (■): A. — Salted 6 d; pH = 5.59;NaCl = 4.66%; B. — Salted 6 d; pH = 5.82; NaCl = 4.50%; C. — Salted 6 d; pH =6.18; NaCl = 4.01%; D. — Salted 14 d; pH = 5.65; NaCl = 6.45%; E. — Salted 14 d;pH = 5.72; NaCl = 5.83%; F. — Salted 14 d; pH = 5.92; NaCl = 5.77%. Sensory attri-butes (●).

656 R. Morales et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 652–657

predict the consumption quality, which could lead to subsequentdissatisfaction.

The differences between expected acceptability and experiencedacceptability can have a negative impact on food acceptance behav-iour (Cardello & Sawyer, 1992). The differences between expectedand experienced acceptability, found in the present study, could bedue to the fact that the consumers do not evaluate the visual sensoryattributes of dry-cured ham correctly because they need external

Fig. 3. External preference map of combined consumer data with visual descriptors as-sessors. Average of consumer expected acceptability is identified (▲) with a circularmodel negative (−). Hams (■): A.— Salted 6 d; pH = 5.59; NaCl = 4.66%; B. — Salted6 d; pH = 5.82; NaCl = 4.50%; C. — Salted 6 d; pH = 6.18; NaCl = 4.01%; D. — Salted14 d; pH = 5.65; NaCl = 6.45%; E. — Salted 14 d; pH = 5.72; NaCl = 5.83%; F. —Salted 14 d; pH = 5.92; NaCl = 5.77%. Sensory attributes (●).

factors, such as price (MAPA, 2005), information about protected de-nominations of origin (Cilla et al., 2006; Resano, Sanjuán, & Albisu,2009), butcher advice (Grunert, 1997; Morales et al., 2008), brandname and origin (Resano, Sanjuán, & Albisu, 2007) and other infor-mation, to make the best purchase decision.

4. Conclusions

Texture and processing time influenced the consumer preferences inconjoint analysis. Redness, colour uniformity, external fat and presence/absence of white film influenced consumer expectations. The consumerdisliked hams with bitter and metallic flavour and with excessive salti-ness and piquantness. Differences between expected and experiencedacceptability were found, which indicates that the visual preference ofconsumers does not allow them to select a dry-cured ham that satisfiestheir sensory preferences of flavour and texture.

Acknowledgements

We thank the “Presidente de la República” scholarship from theChileanMIDEPLAN tofinance RodrigoMorales Pavez's doctorate studiesin Food Science at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. This researchwork was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology(Project AGL2003-04612) and the European Commission under the6th Framework Programme for RTD (TRUEFOOD – “Traditional UnitedEurope Food” – Integrated project FOOD-CT-2006-016264). The infor-mation in this document reflects only the author's views and the Com-munity is not liable for any use that may be made of the informationcontained herein.

References

Arnau, J., Guerrero, L., & Gou, P. (1997). Effects of temperature during the last month ofageing and of salting time ondry-cured ham aged for sixmonths. Journal of the Scienceof Food and Agriculture, 74, 193–198.

Arnau, J., Guerrero, L., Hortós, M., & García-Regueiro, J. A. (1996). The composition ofwhite film and white crystals found in dry-cured hams. Journal of the Science ofFood and Agriculture, 70, 449–452.

ASTM (1981). American Society for Testing and Materials. Guidelines for the Selection andTraining of Sensory Panel Members. ASTM STP 758. Philadelphia: ASTM, 33.

Axelson, M. L., & Brinberg, D. (1989). A Social–Psychological Perspective on Food Behaviour.New York: Springer-Verlag, 103–114.

Bello Acebrón, L., & Calvo Dopico, D. (2000). The importance of intrinsic and extrinsiccues to expected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. FoodQuality and Preference, 11, 229–238.

Cardello, A. V., & Sawyer, F. M. (1992). Effects of disconfirmed consumer expectationson food acceptability. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7(4), 253–277.

Carstens, E., Carstens, M. I., Dessirier, J. -M., O'Mahony, M., Simons, C. T., Sudo, M., &Sudo, S. (2002). It hurts so good: Oral irritation by spices and carbonated drinksand the underlying neural mechanisms. Food Quality and Preference, 13(7–8),431–443.

Chang, T. -Z., & Wildt, A. (1996). Impact of product information on the use of price as aquality cue. Psychology and Marketing, 13(1), 55–75.

Cilla, I., Martínez, L., Beltrán, J. A., & Roncalés, P. (2005). Factors affecting acceptabilityof dry-cured ham throughout extended maturation under “bodega” conditions.Meat Science, 69, 789–795.

Cilla, I., Martínez, L., Guerrero, L., Guàrdia, M. D., Arnau, J., Altarriba, J., & Roncalés, P.(2006). Consumer beliefs and attitudes towards dry-cured ham and protected des-ignation of origin Teruel ham in two Spanish regions differing in product knowl-edge. Food Science and Technology International, 12(3), 359–371.

Delwiche, J. (2004). The impact of perceptual interactions on perceived flavour. FoodQuality and Preference, 15, 137–146.

Flores, M., Ingram, D. A., Bett, K. L., Toldrá, F., & Spanier, A. M. (1997). Sensory characteris-tics of Spanish “Serrano” dry-cured ham. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12, 169–179.

Fundación Jamón Serrano (2008). Pliego de Condiciones para la elaboración del JamónSerrano. Available on 05/02/08 at URL: http://www.fundacionserrano.org/fjamones/es/public/biblioteca/Pliego%20de%20Condiciones.pdf

Grunert, K. G. (1997). What's in a steak? A cross-cultural study on the quality percep-tion of beef. Food Quality and Preference, 8(3), 157–174.

Guàrdia, M. D., Aguiar, A. P. S., Claret, A., Arnau, J., & Guerrero, L. (2010). Sensorycharacterization of dry-cured ham using free-choice profiling. Food Quality andPreference, 21(1), 148–155.

Guàrdia, M. D., Guerrero, L., Gelabert, J., Gou, P., & Arnau, J. (2006). Consumer attitudetowards sodium reduction in meat products and acceptability of fermented sausageswith reduced sodium content.Meat Science, 73, 484–490.

657R. Morales et al. / Meat Science 95 (2013) 652–657

Guerrero, L., Aguiar, A. P. S., Guàrdia, M. D., Claret, A., & Arnau, J. (2007). Criterios deelección del jamón curado para los consumidores españoles. Proceedings IV DryCured Ham World Congress on Science, Technology and Marketing, 18–20 April,Salamanca, Spain (pp. 431–432).

Guerrero, L., Arnau, J., Maneja, E., & Gou, P. (1993). Influence of the meat pH on certainsensorial characteristics of dry cured ham. Food Quality and Preference, 4(1–2), 103.

Guerrero, L., Guàrdia, M. D., & Arnau, J. (2005). Methodological proposal about senso-rial analysis on dry-cured ham: Criteria to take into consideration and systems tovalidate them. Proceedings III Dry Cured HamWorld Congress On Science, Technologyand Marketing, 18–20 May 2005, Teruel, Spain (pp. 187–196).

Hersleth, M., Lengard, V., Verbeke, W., Guerrero, L., & Næs, T. (2011). Consumers'acceptance of innovations in dry-cured ham: Impact of reduced salt content,prolonged aging time and new origin. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 31–41.

IDESCAT (2006). Estructura: Sexe, edat i estat civil de Catalunya. Available on 05/08/06at URL: http://www.idescat.net/cat/poblacio/poblestructura.html

Jaeger, S. R. (2006). Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Quality andPreference, 17, 132–144.

Juhl, H. J., Bech, A. C., Kristensen, K., Poulsen, C. S., & Hansen, M. (1998). Consumer in-volvement and evaluation of green peas. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13(1), 1–11.

Kubberød, E., Ueland, Ø., Rødbotten, M., Westad, F., & Risvik, E. (2002). Gender specificpreferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 285–294.

López, M. O., de la Hoz, L., Cambero, M. I., Gallardo, E., Reglero, G., & Ordóñez, J. A.(1992). Volatile compounds of dry hams from Iberian pigs. Meat Science, 31,267–277.

MacFie, H. J. H., Bratchell, N., Greenhoff, H., & Vallis, L. V. (1989). Designs to balance theeffect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effect in hall test. Journalof Sensory Studies, 4, 129–149.

MAPA (2005). Estudio sobre el conocimiento, hábitos de compra y consumo en España dejamón de cerdo Ibérico y sus denominaciones de calidad actitud de los consumidoresante las denominaciones de origen. Available on 05/02/08 at URL: http://www.mapa.es/alimentacion/pags/comercializacion/estudios/jamon_iberico.pdf

Morales, R., Guerrero, L., Claret, A., Guàrdia, M. D., & Gou, P. (2008). Beliefs and atti-tudes of butchers and consumers towards dry-cured ham. Meat Science, 80(4),1005–1016.

Resano, H., Sanjuán, A., & Albisu, L. (2007). Consumers' acceptability of cured ham in Spainand the influences of information. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 1064–1076.

Resano, H., Sanjuán, A., & Albisu, L. (2009). Consumers' acceptability and actual choice.An exploratory research on cured ham in Spain. Food Quality and Preference, 20(5),391–398.

Resano, H., Sanjuán, A., Cilla, I., Roncalés, P., & Albisu, L. (2010). Sensory attributes thatdrive consumer acceptability of dry-cured ham and convergence with trained sen-sory data. Meat Science, 84(3), 344–351.

Resurreccion, A. V. A. (2003). Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and meatproducts. Meat Science, 66, 11–20.

Rovira, J., Ordóñez, M., & Jaime, I. (1996). Importancia de la calidad sensorial y lapresentación en la actitud de los consumidores frente al jamón. Eurocarne, 45,39–44.

S.A.S. Institute (2001). Statistical Analysis System Release 8.01. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteInc.

Schlich, P., & McEwan, J. A. (1992). Preference mapping — A statistical tool for thefood-industry. Sciences Des Aliments, 12(3), 339–355.

Stafleu, A., Graaf, C., Staveren, W., & Schroots, J. (1991/2). A review of selected studiesassessing social–psychological determinants of fat and cholesterol intake. FoodQuality and Preference, 3(4), 183–200.

Zall, D., Fisher, D., & Garner, M. (1956). Photometric determination of chlorides inwater. Analytical Chemistry, 28(11), 1665–1668.

Zampini, M., Sanabria, D., Phillips, N., & Spence, C. (2007). The multisensory perceptionof flavor: Assessing the influence of color cues on flavor discrimination responses.Food Quality and Preference, 18, 975–984.