theeffectofpreparationmethod!on …...kamilla!hall!kragelund!! ! studienummer201503524!!! 3!...

THE EFFECT OF PREPARATION METHOD ON

PRESCHOOL CHILDREN’S LIKING OF A FAMILIAR AND AN UNFAMILIAR VEGETABLE OVER

MERE EXPOSURES

Master’s thesis in Molecular Nutrition and Food Technology Submitted 01.06.2017

Kamilla Hall Kragelund, student no. 201503524

Supervisors: Ulla Kidmose and Babara Vad Andersen Department of Food Science, AU Årslev

Institute of Science and Technology, Aarhus university

Kamilla Hall Kragelund Studienummer 201503524

2

Abstract Despite the health benefits, Danish children do not meet the national recommendations for

daily intake of fruits and vegetables. Studies show that the food preferences are formed in the

childhood based on internal and external factors, but can be influenced by learning strategies.

This study aims to investigate if three different preparation methods have an effect on the

children’s liking of a familiar vegetable (carrot) versus an unfamiliar vegetable (parsnip) over

mere exposure. The 263 participating children were divided into six exposure groups

according to what they were going to be exposed to e.g. carrot baked (CBA, n=42), carrot

boiled (CBO, n=45), carrot raw (CR, n=43), parsnip baked (PBA, n=45), parsnip boiled (PBO,

n=43) or parsnip raw (PR, n=45). At pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test, all the children tasted all six

combinations in order to function as each other’s control group.

The results showed that there was no significant effect of mere exposure on liking within the

exposure groups, however there was significant effect of mere exposure on liking between the

exposed children and the non-‐‑exposed children from pre-‐‑test to post-‐‑test, except in the CR

and CBA groups. The children gave the familiar carrot a higher liking compared to the

unfamiliar parsnip and even though the liking of the unfamiliar parsnip showed an increasing

tendency, the familiar raw carrot remained the most liked from pre-‐‑test to post-‐‑test. The

study also found that the raw preparation method did not influence the liking of the familiar

carrot over mere exposures, as the liking remained the same, however the liking of the

unfamiliar parsnip increased slightly. Also, both the baked carrot and parsnip increased

slightly in liking as well as the boiled carrot and parsnip. The results showed that the liking of

preparation method in general was higher in the familiar carrot compared to the unfamiliar

parsnip. Furthermore, the gender of the children did not affect the liking of the vegetables

except the boys had a higher liking of PR at the pre-‐‑test. However, the children’s level of

neophobia had an effect on the liking as the most neophobic children had the lowest liking of

the vegetables and the children with the lowest level of neophobia had the highest liking of

vegetables. Hence, it can be concluded that different preparation methods and mere exposure

can improve the liking for vegetables. However, more research is needed in relation to the

different preparation methods, mere exposure and food neophobia in children.


3

Resume (in Danish)

På trods af, at forskning viser, at grøntsager er sunde for os og indeholder vigtige vitaminer,

mineraler og fibre, så er indtaget af grøntsager blandt danske børn ikke højt nok. I Danmark

anbefales det, at børn i alderen 4-‐‑10 år indtager 300-‐‑500 gram grøntsager om dagen, men

ifølge en undersøgelse er det kun 21 % af de danske børn, der opfylder kravene (Fagt, 2015).

Dette betyder, at der stadig er et stort behov for at undersøge, hvad der kan få børnene til at

øge deres indtag af grøntsager. Undersøgelser viser, at et menneskes præferencer for

fødevarer primært dannes i barndommen og at barnet ofte tager sine kostvaner med ind i

voksenlivet (2017). Derudover spiser barnet, hvad det kan lide, hvilket i barndommen kan

være præget af fødevare neofobi, der blandt andet er beskrevet som en manglende lyst til at

smage på en ukendt fødevare (Birch & Fisher, 1998). Tidligere studier viser, at indlærings-‐‑

strategien gentagen eksponering af en fødevare kan forbedre børns accept af en i begyndelsen

ukendt/ikke vellidt grøntsag samt at måden, hvorpå grøntsagen er tilberedt også påvirker

børnenes accept. Derfor ønsker dette studie at undersøge, hvordan forskellige tilberednings-‐‑

metoder samt gentagen eksponering påvirker børnenes liking af to forskellige grøntsager,

hvoraf én er velkendt for dem og den anden er mindre velkendt.

De 263 deltagende børn blev inddelt i seks forskellige grupper, som var opkaldt efter den

grøntsag og tilberedningsmetode, som børnene i gruppen skulle eksponeres for otte gange i

perioden med gentagen eksponering; carrot baked (CBA), carrot boiled (CBO), carrot raw

(CR), parsnip baked (PBA), parsnip boiled (CBO) og parsnip raw (PR). Til prætesten og post-‐‑

testen smagte alle børnene på alle smagsprøver for på den måde at kunne være kontrol-‐‑

gruppe for hinanden. Resultaterne viste, at gentagen eksponering ikke havde nogen effekt på

børnenes liking indenfor eksponeringsgrupperne, men at der til gengæld var en signifikant

effekt af gentagen eksponering imellem de børn, der var blevet eksponeret sammenlignet med

de børn, der ikke var blevet eksponeret bortset fra grupperne CR og CBA. Børnene gav den

velkendte gulerod højere liking end den ukendte pastinak ved prætest og selvom liking for

den ukendte pastinak viste en stigende tendens gennem de gentagne eksponeringer, så

forblev liking for den velkendte gulerod højere end for pastinakken. Resultaterne viste også,

at den rå tilberedningsmethode ikke påvirkede liking af den velkendte gulerod, men gav en

lille stigning i liking ved pastinakken i løbet af de gentagne eksponeringer. Både den bagte og

den kogte tilberedningsmetode viste en stigende tendens i både gulerod og pastinak.


4

Børnenes køn havde generelt ikke nogen effekt på liking bortset fra, at drengene havde højere

liking af PR ved prætest. Børnenes neofobiske status havde effekt på børnenes liking, idet de

børn, der var i gruppen ”Ikke neofobisk” havde højere liking af grøntsagerne end de børn, der

var i gruppen ”Neofobisk”. Baseret på disse resultater, konkluderes det, at gentagen

eksponering samt forskellige tilberedningsmetoder kan anvendes til at forbedre børns accept

af grøntsager, hvilket er i overensstemmelse med allerede eksisterende litteratur på området.


5

Preface

This report was written for a 60 ECTS master project at the master’s programme Molecular

Nutrition and Food Technology at Institute of Science and Technology, Aarhus University. The

experimental work of the study was performed at four public schools in Odense in

collaboration with Department of Food Science, AU Årslev. Postdoc Barbara Vad Andersen

and associate professor Ulla Kidmose were supervisors.

The author of this study wish to give thanks to the children, parents and teachers from the

four schools for participating in the study. Also, a thank to Grete Nielsen and Brian Due for

their help in carrying out the study and to Ulla Kidmose and Barbara Vad Andersen for

supervision through the process.

This thesis has been prepared by

____________________________________________________ __________________

Signature of the author Date


6

Table of contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 8 1.1 The objective and hypotheses of the study ........................................................................................... 9 1.2 Guidance for the Reader .............................................................................................................................. 9 1.3 Explanation of terms ................................................................................................................................. 10 1.4 Abbreviations and symbols ..................................................................................................................... 10

2. Theoretical Background .................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Children’s intake of fruits and vegetables .......................................................................................... 11 2.2 Vegetables – carrots and parsnips ........................................................................................................ 12 2.3 Development of children’s food preferences .................................................................................... 13 2.4 Strategies to increase children’s acceptance of fruit and vegetables ....................................... 15 2.4.1 Mere exposure .......................................................................................................................................................... 15 2.4.2 Preparation methods ............................................................................................................................................ 16

2.5 Food Neophobia .......................................................................................................................................... 18 2.6 Measuring tools for children’s liking ................................................................................................... 19 2.7 Literature study .......................................................................................................................................... 20 2.7.1 Mere exposure .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 2.7.2 Food neophobia ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 2.7.3 Preparation methods ............................................................................................................................................ 22

2.8 Sub-‐‑conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 23 3. Materials and methods ..................................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Overall study design .................................................................................................................................. 24 3.1.1 Structure of the study design ............................................................................................................................. 24 3.1.2 The phases of the study ........................................................................................................................................ 25 3.1.3 Scale for measurement of liking ....................................................................................................................... 26

3.2 Participants .................................................................................................................................................. 26 3.2.1 Recruitment of the test participants ............................................................................................................... 26 3.2.2 Test participants ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 3.2.3 Randomization of participants for mere exposure phase ..................................................................... 27 3.2.4 Randomization of participants for pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test .................................................................... 28

3.3 Experimental procedure .......................................................................................................................... 29 3.3.1 Pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test procedure ..................................................................................................................... 29 3.3.2 Mere exposure-‐‑test ................................................................................................................................................ 29 3.3.3 Deviations from test procedure ........................................................................................................................ 30

3.4 Experimental stimuli ................................................................................................................................. 30 3.4.1 Choice of vegetables and preparation methods ........................................................................................ 30

3.5 Statistical data processing ....................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.1 Pre-‐‑test liking ........................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.2 Test for the effect of mere exposure on liking within the groups ...................................................... 33 3.5.3 Test for the effect of gender on liking ............................................................................................................ 33 3.5.4 Test for the effect of level of neophobia on liking ..................................................................................... 33 3.5.5 Correlation tests ...................................................................................................................................................... 33

4. Results ................................................................................................................................................... 34 4.1 Participants .................................................................................................................................................. 34 4.2 Pre-‐‑test liking ............................................................................................................................................... 34 4.3 Mere exposure ............................................................................................................................................. 36 4.4 Effect of gender on liking ......................................................................................................................... 40 4.5 Effect of level of neophobia on liking ................................................................................................... 41


7

4.6 The correlation tests ................................................................................................................................. 44 5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 48 Strengths and limitations ................................................................................................................................ 54

6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 56 7. Perspectives ......................................................................................................................................... 57 8. References ............................................................................................................................................ 58 9. APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................. 64 Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................................... 65 Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................................... 69 Appendix C ........................................................................................................................................................... 72 Appendix D ........................................................................................................................................................... 73 Appendix E ........................................................................................................................................................... 74 Appendix F ........................................................................................................................................................... 75 Appendix G ........................................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix H ........................................................................................................................................................... 79 Appendix I ............................................................................................................................................................ 80 Appendix J ............................................................................................................................................................ 83 Appendix K ........................................................................................................................................................... 84


8

1. Introduction Years of medical and nutritional research have shown several health benefits from high

consumption of fruits and vegetables including reduced risk of life-‐‑threatening diseases for

instance cardiovascular conditions, type II diabetes, obesity and certain types of cancers

(Reetica Rekhy, 2014). Fruits and vegetables are important for human health as they contain

important vitamins, minerals and fibers, which have a preventing effect on diseases (Astrup,

2005). The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that approximately 1.7 million

deaths yearly or 2.8 % of all deaths yearly are related to the current low intake of fruits and

vegetables (2013). Beyond that, a study from 2014 suggests that there is “an inverse dose

response relationship between fruit and vegetables consumption and all cause mortality” (Wang

X., 2014). Therefore, a high intake of fruits and vegetables is important in a healthy diet.

However, the global intake of fruits and vegetables does not yet meet the recommendations.

In Europe, the daily intake of fruits and vegetables for an adult is 220 g, which is only half of

the recommended intake (2011). In Denmark, the national recommendation is 600 g of fruits

and vegetables per day for adults and for children in the age group 4-‐‑10 years, which is the

relevant age for the present study, the recommendation is 300-‐‑500 g per day. Also in

Denmark, the daily recommendations are not met, as only 21% of the Danish children and

young people meet the daily intake (Fagt & Matthiessen, 2017).

Studies show that food preferences are formed in the childhood and that the food preferences

remain the same into adulthood (2017) (2004). However, children tend to eat what they like

and this can be influenced by food neophobia, which is described as a reluctance to eat or

taste novel foods (Birch & Fisher, 1998). But, previous studies have successfully shown that

the learning strategy mere exposure of a vegetable has had an effect and furthermore can

improve the children’s accept of an initially disliked vegetable to the same level as an initially

liked vegetable (2012) (2007). Other studies have similar found that the preparation method

of vegetable also influences the liking of it due to sensory attributes (Gertrude G. Zeinstra,

2010). Therefore, the present study aims to investigate how three different preparation

methods influence preschool children’s liking of a familiar and an unfamiliar vegetable over

mere exposure.


9

1.1 The objective and hypotheses of the study

The overall objective of this study is to investigate how three different preparation methods

influence the liking of a familiar vegetable and an unfamiliar vegetable over the strategy mere

exposure.

Following are the hypotheses in relation to the overall objective of the study:

1. The type of vegetable (familiar versus unfamiliar) has an effect on liking

2. The type of preparation method has an effect on liking

3. The type of vegetable and preparation method has an effect on liking

4. The strategy mere exposure has an effect on liking

Additional to the hypotheses to overall objective of the study, there are also some hypotheses

related to the questionnaires, which can be seen below:

5. The type of gender has an effect on liking

6. The level of food neophobia has an effect on liking

7. There is a correlation between the liking and the intake of respectively carrots and

parsnips reported by the parents

8. There is a correlation between the liking of respectively carrots and parsnips reported

by the parents and the children’s liking of carrots and parsnips at the pre-‐‑test

1.2 Guidance for the reader

This thesis is written in English as most literature regarding the topic is in English and

therefore it is most natural to write the following in the same languish. The thesis starts with

a theoretical background in section 2 involving a description of the development of food

preferences in children, the learning strategy mere exposure and preparation methods. In

section 3, the materials and method of the study is described together with a description of

the different phases of the study, the recruitment of the participants and the statistical data

processing. The results are presented in section 4 and discussed in section 5. Afterwards,

there is a conclusion and a perspective of the study.


10

1.3 Explanation of terms

In order to reduce confusion of the terms that are often used in the literature regarding the

topic of this study for instance food acceptance, food preferences and liking, an explanation of

the terms used in this study will be given here. However, when the literature is described, the

terms that they have been used will of course be used. According to Cardello et al. (2000),

there are two important variables in studies of consumer food behavior; behavioral and

attitudinal, of which the behavioral variables consists of measurements such as intake and the

attitudinal variable includes the affective responses to food such as liking/disliking. In

relation to this, the term food preference is used as a behavioral measure, when one prefer

something over another in contrast to the term food acceptance, which is used as an

attitudinal measure for prepared food that is actually tasted. This means, that in this study the

children’s liking of a familiar and an unfamiliar vegetable is used as an attitudinal

measurement for vegetable acceptance, which can give an idea about the children’s intake of

vegetables.

1.4 Abbreviations and symbols

CBA: baked carrot

CBO: boiled carrot

CR: raw carrot

PBA: baked parsnip

PBO: boiled parsnip

PR: raw parsnip


11

2. Theoretical Background

2.1 Children’s intake of fruits and vegetables

In the following section, the current intake of fruits and vegetables among children will be

reviewed. As fruits and vegetables are usually being discussed as a united group of foods, they

will also be mentioned together as one group of foods here.

As mentioned in the introduction, a high intake of fruit and vegetables is important for the

individual human health and for the public health as fruit and vegetables contain important

vitamins, minerals and fibers. This means that they have a preventive impact on development

of different diseases such as cardiovascular diseases and some types of cancer (Astrup, 2005).

In Denmark, the national board of health recommend that 4-‐‑10 years old children eat 300-‐‑

500 gram of fruits and vegetables each day. A report written by Fagt et al. (2017) from the

Technical University of Denmark (DTU) concerning the Danish people’s dietary habits shows

that Danish children and young people between 4-‐‑17 years in general eat inadequate amounts

of fruits and vegetables as only 21% of them meet the national recommendations.

Additionally, the data shows that the 4-‐‑10-‐‑year-‐‑old children, who are relevant for the present

study, have an intake of approximately 80 g more fruits and vegetables per day compared to

the older children in the report. In general, the intake of fruits and vegetables for children

between 4 and 17 years has been unchanged since 2005 as there has been an increase in the

intake of vegetables for the 4-‐‑10 years old and a decrease in the intake of fruits among the 11-‐‑

17 years. However, an increase in the intake of fruits and vegetables of 50 g per day among

the 4-‐‑6-‐‑years old means that the proportion that comply with the recommendations in the

age-‐‑group 4-‐‑6 years old increases from 25% to 40% in the period from 2005 to 2013 (Fagt &

Matthiessen, 2017). In further details, results from the Danish eating habits 2011-‐‑2013 shows

that boys between 4-‐‑9 years in average eats 158 g of vegetables per day and that girls in the

same age group eats in average 157 g of vegetables per day (Fagt, 2015).

All these results show that there has been an increase in the intake of vegetables for children

between 4-‐‑6 years, but there is still a requirement for a further improvement as around 60%

of them still do not have a high enough intake compared to the recommendations.


12

2.2 Vegetables – carrots and parsnips

As mentioned in the previous section, vegetables are important for human health as they

contain essential vitamins, minerals and fibers as well as many other health-‐‑beneficial

compounds (Astrup, 2005). In the present study two vegetables a carrot and a parsnip is

chosen as the test vegetables because the carrot is a familiar vegetable and the parsnip is a

unfamiliar vegetable. Carrots are one of the most popular vegetables especially in Europe and

they are found in many different forms both fresh, frozen, “cut-‐‑and-‐‑peel” etc., which makes it

easy for the consumer to use them in their everyday life (Tanumihardjo, Suri, Simon, &

Goldman, 2016). This makes the carrot one of the most consumed coarse vegetable, which is

supported by a study from Beck (2014), which showed that 90 % of Danish adult consumers

had a high intake of carrots. In comparison, only 50-‐‑60 % of the adult consumers consumed

parsnips minimum once a month, which makes it a less eaten and less familiar vegetable

compared to the carrot. The consumer’s high intake and general liking for carrots are related

to a perceived sweetness of carrots (Varming, et al., 2004). However, vegetables in general are

often characterized as having a bitter taste, which is one of the primary causes of low intake

and low acceptance from especially children. Many different compounds have been related to

the bitter taste in carrots, but the polyacetylenes falcarionol (FaOH), falcarindiol (FaDOH) and

falcarindiol 3-‐‑acetate (FaDOAc) have been shown to have the major impact on the bitter taste

in carrots (Kreutzmann, Christensen, & Edelenbos, 2008). The polyacetylenes also occur

naturally in parsnips. Minimal processing results in a reduction of the compounds due to

peeling of the vegetable skin in which a high distribution of the compounds is placed and also

heat processing reduces the levels of polyacetylene (Koidis, Rawson, & Brunton, 2015).

Carrots and parsnips are root crops and they are related to each other despite they are

different vegetables. They both have a long history – the carrot was being used in Central Asia

and Afghanistan 1100 years ago and the parsnip was consumed in Roman times. The carrot

comes in a variety of different colors, but in this study the focus will be on the orange carrot.

Carrots are available in large parts of the world and function well in cooler climates and both

parsnips and carrots can be eaten during the winter, where many vegetables are not in

season. If they are stored in refrigerator, the shelf life can be up to a month (Tanumihardjo,

Suri, Simon, & Goldman, 2016).


13

Carrots are a significant source of a-‐‑carotene and b-‐‑carotene, which can be cleaved into

respectively one or two molecules of vitamin A in the human body. This makes carrots an

important source of vitamin A, which is essential for reproduction, healthy eyes, cell growth

and strengthening of the immune system. Both carrots and parsnips contain fibers with 3 g

fiber per 100 g raw carrot and 5 g fiber per 100 g parsnip. Beyond all this, carrots have

antioxidant capacity as both a-‐‑carotene and b-‐‑carotene are antioxidant and therefore they

can capture free radicals (Tanumihardjo, Suri, Simon, & Goldman, 2016).

2.3 Development of children’s food preferences

In this section, the development of children’s food preferences and the factors that influence it

will be described. According to Helland et al. (2017) children’s food preferences are formed

when the child is approximately 2-‐‑3 years old and they tend to persist into adulthood. There

are several factors that affect the development of the children’s food preferences and they are

shown in figure 1 below, which is inspired by a review by Johnson et al. (2016).

Figure 1: The internal and external factors and the learning strategies that influence the development of children’s food preferences.

Vegetable consumption

Internal factors:Genetic predispositionAgeNeophobia

External factors:Early learning experiencesParent neophobiaHome environmentSocioeconomic statusVegetable availabilityPreparation method of vegetable

Learning strategies:Mere exposureFlavour-‐‑flavour learningFlavour-‐‑nutrient learningReward


14

The internal factors are as followed genetic predispositions, age and level of neophobia. Some

children have a genetically predisposed response to bitter taste as they are sensitive to 6-‐‑n-‐‑

propylthiouracil (PROP) and therefore rate vegetables as more bitter. This might result in

negative experiences related to vegetables and a lower intake (Bell & Tepper, 2006). The age

of the children is also an important factor, as children have an innate taste preference for

sweet and salty in their early childhood and an inborn distaste for bitter. Though, this taste

preference declines with age (Mennella, 2014). The last internal factor the level of neophobia

is also related to age, as it often starts at the age of 2 years old and is at its height up to

preschool age, but in most cases it declines with age after this period. However, it can result in

a “rejection of foods that are novel or unknown to the child” (Doveya, Staples, Gibson, & Halfor,

2007). The external factors consist of early learning experiences, parent neophobia, home

environment, socioeconomic status, vegetable availability and preparation method of the

vegetables. In general, these external factors show that young children to a great extent are

influenced by their home environment and their parent’s intake of vegetables (Larson &

Story, 2009). Studies have also shown that the children’s intake of vegetables is influenced by

socioeconomic factors in the family as the availability and accessibility of vegetables in lower

socioeconomic families is associated with economic expenses (Cullen, et al., 2003). In recent

years, the preparation method of the vegetable has also been shown as a factor that influences

the consumption of vegetables, as some preparation methods e.g. boiled are more wanted by

children than other preparation methods (Zeinstra, 2010). However, this will be described

more in details later.

Even though the children’s food preferences are formed based on the above-‐‑mentioned

factors, studies have shown that there are some learning strategies that can be used to

increase the children’s familiarity of vegetables and thereby improve the acceptance and

consumption (Johnson, 2016). The most studied strategies are mere exposure, flavour-‐‑flavour

and flavour-‐‑nutrient learning and the use of rewards. Mere exposure is the strategy that has

shown the most consistent effects on children’s vegetable acceptance (Lakkakula A, 2010)

(Hausner, Olsen, & Møller, 2012).


15

2.4 Strategies to increase children’s acceptance of fruit and vegetables

As just described, children’s food preferences are determined of both internal and external

factors. But even though the child’s food preferences are formed early in life, they can still be

modified by different strategies for instance mere exposure, flavour-‐‑flavour and flavour-‐‑

nutrient learning (Cardello A. , Schutz, Snow, & Lesher, 2000). These learning strategies can

be used to modify children’s acceptance for food and as relevant for this study they can be

used to increase the liking of a familiar and an unfamiliar vegetable among school children. In

the following section, the strategy mere exposure and the external factor the preparation

method will be described based on the objective to increase the liking of vegetables.

2.4.1 Mere exposure

Several studies (2010) (2012) (2012) have tested the effect of mere exposure on children’s

acceptance of different types of food including vegetables. The strategy mere exposure

function by frequently repeated exposures of the stimulus and thereby creating an increased

familiarity with the food. In order for mere exposure to be a success, it is important that the

experience with the tasting of the food does not produce any negative affect as this would

probably decrease the acceptance. The associations that the children have with the tasting of

the food products are therefore important for their liking (Zajonc, 1968).

The number of mere exposures that are needed to change the children’s acceptance for

vegetables varies slightly depending on the study. The number of mere exposures seems to

depend on different factors for instance the type of food, as only three exposures are sufficient

for acceptance of fruit, whereas vegetables require up to eight or nine exposures (Horne P. J.,

2004). For instance, Maier et al. (2007) compared an initially disliked and an initially liked

vegetable and showed that after seven to eight exposures most infants accepted the initially

disliked vegetable. Another study concluded that “there was a tendency for highly liked foods to

remain so and for least liked foods to become more liked over time” (Brandi Y. Rollins, 2010). A

study from 2011 showed that the children who were exposed to an initially disliked food

(snack bar) increased their acceptance of the food after nine exposures and the children that

were exposed to an initially liked food (also snack bar) showed a stable liking across the


16

exposures (Hausner, Hartvig, Reinbach, Wendin, & Bredie, 2012). Based on the above-‐‑

mentioned results, approximately eight or nine mere exposures are required before there is

an effect in the acceptance of the initially disliked food.

2.4.1.2 The boredom effect

The boredom effect is typically seen in studies with 10-‐‑20 mere exposures and will result in

decreased acceptance of the food (R. Bornstein, 1990). The boredom effect can be seen in

children that have been exposed to a food repeatedly and this can be a limiting factor for the

effect of mere exposure due to the increased level of familiarity (Mojet, 2008). A study by

Olsen et al. (2012) showed that liking for most vegetables decreased during the exposure

period even though the opposite was expected. They discuss that a reason for this result could

be due to boredom as the daily exposures might have been too extensive, too monotonous and

the children got bored of the vegetables and the repetition. Results from a study by Hausner et

al. (2012) suggests that an exposure interval of 2-‐‑3 days may prevent the boredom effect as

the acceptance for the snack bar in their study was constant over exposures.

Due to the results mentioned above, it is important to be aware of the boredom effect in the

research primarily about mere exposure as there will be a risk of it affecting the results. The

results could also be transferred to the reality as the boredom effect could also occur here if

the same food is repeatedly being served for a child. However, the risk of boredom effect in

reality is smaller compared to the risk in mere exposure studies due to naturally more varied

food in reality.

2.4.2 Preparation methods

Today, there is limited research on how the different preparation methods influence the liking

of vegetables among children. A study by Zeinstra et al. (2010) showed that the preparation

method influenced the liking of for instance carrots and that the children preferred boiled and

steamed compared to mashed, grilled, stir-‐‑fried and deep-‐‑fried. This was explained by the fact

that boiling was the most familiar preparation method of carrots and because of sensory

attributes, as the boiling and steaming resulted in the most uniform surface of the carrots, the

typical carrot taste, colour and crunchiness. Beyond that, the absence of brown colouring was

also described as being an important factor. Therefore, the study concluded that the liking of


17

vegetables was dependent of a mixture of familiarity of the taste, a uniform appearance and a

texture that the children can handle due to their physical development of teeth, muscles etc.

(Gertrude G. Zeinstra, 2010). These results regarding the sensory attributes are consistent

with the results found by Donadini et el. (2012) as they found that nearly half of the children

related their acceptance of the vegetable to the sensory characteristics. For instance, a sweet

taste and the original colour of the vegetable increased the acceptance, whereas brown

colouring and a tough texture had a negative impact on acceptance.

Results from another study by Poelman et al. (2013) also showed that children’s acceptance

for vegetables in this case Brassica vegetables was influenced by the preparation method, but

that it was the preparation time that had the greatest effect on acceptance. The study showed

that the children accepted boiling and steaming equally much, but that the medium

preparation time was preferred over the short and the long preparation time. The medium

preparation time in the study was 6 minutes and this resulted in a medium firm texture of the

samples. These findings are in accordance with Szczesniak et al. (1972) who found that

children prefer raw to cooked vegetables. Another study by Poelman et al. (2011) also found

that children liked the boiled vegetables most compared to baked/stir fried. The study found

that type of preparation method had a greater influence on the children who had a reported

lower liking of vegetables compared to the children that had a higher liking of vegetables.

These results were also supported by a study from 2015 by the same author Poelman et al.

(2015) who found that boiling and steaming were preferred over roasting and frying in

carrots.

All these above-‐‑mentioned results show that the preparation method is important for the

acceptance of vegetables among children and therefore it is one of the factors that can be used

to increase the intake of vegetables in children. However, it is important to remember that the

most liked preparation method is specific to the vegetable as raw for instance is preferred in

some vegetables, when boiling is preferred in others (Poelman, Delahunty, & Graaf, 2015).

However, more research on the preparation methods is needed as some of the existing

research are based on results from questionnaires instead of actual tasting.


18

2.5 Food Neophobia

The acceptance of food products is highly influenced by the child’s level of food neophobia,

which is defined as “the rejection of foods that are novel or unknown to the child”. (Doveya,

Staples, Gibson, & Halfor, 2007) The term has been described by Rozin (1979) as a survival

mechanism that was evolutionary beneficial to help children avoid consumption of potentially

poisonous plants, toxic chemicals and others the environment without parents or other older.

Food neophobia is therefore a natural survival mechanism whereby the child rejects food

products that it has no experiences with. However, this survival-‐‑way of looking at food

neophobia is not as relevant today as it used to be, as todays food is generally safe to eat and

therefore there is no reason for this protective mechanism. Today this mechanism only

function as a reduction in the child’s dietary variety (Nicklaus S. , 2009). Therefore, the

challenge of food neophobia today is more related to the reduced intake of important macro-‐‑

or micronutrients. For instance, a study by Falciglia et al. (2000) showed that children with

high level of food neophobia had a lower intake of vitamin E compared to the less neophobic

children. Another study showed that neophobic individuals had deficiencies in magnesium,

monounsaturated fats and protein (Capiola & Raudenbush, 2012). As relevant for this study, a

study from 2013 showed that people with higher levels of food neophobia had a lower intake

of vegetables compared to persons with lower levels of food neophobia (Siegrist, Hartmann, &

Keller, 2013).

Food neophobia usually starts developing as the child is around two years old and it peaks

somewhere between 2 and 6 years and then it gradually decreases with age and obtains a

stable level in adulthood. Even though food neophobia tend to be strongly related to age,

other factors also influence the child’s level of food neophobia for instance the individual

child’s personality. The personality plays a role in the acceptance of new foods as children

with a more sensation seeking personality tend to have a lower level of food neophobia

because of a lower general neophobia. And opposite, children with different levels of anxiety

tend to be positively related to food neophobia (Doveya, Staples, Gibson, & Halfor, 2007).

As mentioned before, the children’s food preferences are established early in life and

therefore it is relevant if breastfeeding or formula feeding influences food neophobia. Studies

show that infants that have been breast-‐‑fed increased their intake of novel vegetables in their


19

weaning period in a greater amount compared to formula fed infants. It functions as a

domino-‐‑effect as the infants who were introduced to a higher variety of vegetables early in

their weaning period, also tended to accept new food in general more rapidly (Maier,

Chabanet, Schaal, Issanchou, & Leathwood, 2007). Beyond that, children are also believed to

have an innate tendency to prefer sweet and fatty energy-‐‑dense food compared to the bitter

taste, which often characterizes the taste of vegetables. Therefore, children probably have a

genetic resistance against vegetables (Lehto, et al., 2015).

Through the years, there have been developed many different tools for measuring food

neophobia in children. According to a recent review by Damsbo-‐‑Svendsen et al. (2017), seven

instruments are available for measuring food neophobia in children depending on the child’s

age. The present study uses the Food Neophobia Scale for Children (FNSC) from 1994, which

is an adjusted version of the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS). It was developed for children in the

age group between 5 and 11 years and is a ten-‐‑item measure and can be seen in appendix A

(Pliner, 1994).

2.6 Measuring tools for children’s liking

In the previous sections, the strategy mere exposure and the factor of preparation methods

used in this study for increasing the liking of a familiar and an unfamiliar vegetable have been

described and in this section the measuring tools for the children’s liking will be described.

Today, there is a variety of measuring tools for food acceptance testing as it is both possible to

measure a direct intake of the vegetable in the test and there are also several different scales,

of which some of the scales e.g. pictorial scales are invented specially for children. However,

by using these scales for children, it is important to use age-‐‑appropriate scales, so that the

children do not get distracted by the pictures and it is essential that the children have the

cognitive skills and thereby understand that the faces on the pictures are supposed to show

their response to the food (Lawless & Heymann). According to Chen et al. (1996) a 7-‐‑point

facial scale can be used with children from 5 years and older, which is why it was used in the

present study, 4-‐‑years-‐‑old can use a 5-‐‑point scale and 3-‐‑years old children have shown to able

to use a 3-‐‑point facial scale. By using these scales, the children express their liking for the

tasted vegetable or other food and this is a measurement for the children’s acceptance of the


20

vegetable, which was also described in the explanation of terms in the introduction. Previous

studies have also used these scales as Maier et al. used the 9-‐‑point scale together with intake

(2007), Hausner et al. used a 7-‐‑point smiley scale (2012) and Lakkakula et al. used a 3-‐‑point

Likert scale (2010). However, in a greater perspective, the objective is to increase the intake

of vegetables in children and therefore the most accurate measurement is to measure the

intake directly. This was done by Maier et al. in infants (2007) and by Hausner et al. in 2-‐‑3

years old children (2012).

2.7 Literature study

As already mentioned in the introduction, children do not consume the recommended amount

of vegetables and children’s liking of vegetables is one of the key predictors for the children’s

consumption of vegetables (Gibson, Wardle, & Watts, 1998). Johnson et al. (2016) found that

children’s food preferences are formed in the childhood and that children tend to take their

eating habits with them into adulthood. This makes it important to study, which factors that

influence the children’s acceptance of vegetables and which strategies that have been

successfully used to increase the children’s acceptance of vegetables. Therefore, the following

section will describe some of the already existing literature related to the topic of this study.

2.7.1 Mere exposure

In the following section, the studies that have already investigated the relationship between

mere exposure of an initially disliked vegetable (or another food) and the acceptance of it

compared to an initially liked food will be described.

A study by Maier et al. (2007) investigated the effect of repeated exposures of vegetable purée

on acceptance in 7-‐‑month old infants. They compared an initially liked and an initially disliked

vegetable purée and the results showed that after eight exposures, the intake of the initially

disliked vegetable purée was similar to the initially liked purée. The acceptance was

maintained even after nine months, which shows that the effect was persistent. A study by

Hausner et al. (2012) investigated the effect of mere exposure of an initially disliked and

initially liked snack bar in 9-‐‑11-‐‑year-‐‑old children. The results showed that the children that

had been exposed to the initially disliked snack bar increased their acceptance for the disliked

snack bar after nine exposures to the same level as the acceptance of the initially liked snack


21

bar. Lakkakula et al. (2010) tested repeated exposure in vegetables by low-‐‑income school

children and the results showed that the number of children who liked/or liked a lot for

previously disliked vegetables were at the most after eight or nine tasting of the vegetables.

These studies indicate that the number of mere exposures that are needed to increase the

acceptance of an initially disliked food are eight or nine exposures. Then Hausner et al. (2012)

compared the strategies mere exposure, flavour-‐‑flavour learning and flavour-‐‑nutrient

learning. The results showed that the intake of a novel vegetable purée increased most due to

the mere exposure and this was seen already after 5 exposures. The flavour-‐‑flavour learning

strategy needed 10 exposures to change the intake and flavour-‐‑nutrient strategy did not

succeed in changing the intake. Other studies have also tried to study the effect of several

strategies such as a study by Fildes et al. (2014), who tested if a daily intake at home of an

initially disliked vegetable for 14 days together with a reward could increase the children’s

acceptance. The results showed that the 14 exposures and a reward were effective in

increasing the children’s acceptance of an initially disliked vegetable. However, the study also

mention that maybe 14 exposures were not necessarily for all children, maybe fewer could

have been used.

These findings show that mere exposure can be used as a powerful mechanism to improve

and increase the acceptance of initially disliked foods in children -‐‑ also in a long-‐‑term

perspective. However, the number of exposures that are needed are still not consistent and

therefore more research is needed.

2.7.2 Food neophobia

One of the factors that highly influence the children’s food preferences and the acceptance of

foods is the child’s level of neophobia. Several studies have studied the effect of neophobia in

relation to food acceptance and some of them will be described here. Food neophobia is often

measured by the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) developed by Pliner and Hobden in 1992 and

according to a study by Damsbo-‐‑Svendsen et al. (2017), the FNS continue to give reliable and

valid results, even though some of the questions are not relevant today due to a changed food

selection. Most studies today rely on parents reports about the children’s level of neophobia,

but a study by Laureati et al. (2015) tried to develop their own neophobia scale for the

children based on the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS). The results from this study showed that


22

the new questionnaire could be used by children at the age of eight years and older, but not by

children at 6-‐‑years as they did not respond repeatable at the questionnaires.

Falciglia et al. (2000) divided the children of their study into three groups based on their

scores from the FNS and results from the study showed that the neophobic group had a higher

intake of saturated fat, a lower overall “Health Eating Index” score and less food variety

compared to children without food neophobia. This is consistent with the findings from a

study by Helland et al. (2017), who found that children with high levels of neophobia had less

frequent intake of vegetables. In relation to mere exposure, this could indicate that children

with a high level of neophobia need more exposures in order to improve their acceptance for

a novel food compared too children with lower levels of neophobia.

2.7.3 Preparation methods

One of the factors that can influence the children’s acceptance of vegetables is the preparation

method of the vegetable. Currently, there is not much scientific research available on the topic

and therefore it has only been possible to find a few articles. However, the existing studies

have in general found that the preparation method influences the acceptance of the

vegetables, which will be described here. In 2011 Poelman et al. (2011) investigated if the

children’s acceptance for vegetables was influenced by the preparation method. They found

that the preparation method did affect the acceptance for vegetables (cauliflower and beans)

as boiled vegetables were accepted more than baked/stir fried. The low acceptance for baked

samples was explained by a high odour intensity and the presence of browned flavour, which

was not present in the boiled samples. Again in 2013, Poelman et al. (2013) showed that the

children’s acceptance for broccoli and cauliflower was affected by the preparation method,

but that the preparation time had a greater effect on acceptance as the medium preparation

time of 6-‐‑8.5 minutes depending om vegetable and preparation method was most wanted for

both vegetables compared to the short and the long preparation times. Later, Poelman et al.

(2015) also studied children’s experiences, liking and intake of vegetables with reference to

preparation practices at home by using a questionnaire, which was answered by the parents.

The results showed that preparation method influenced vegetable acceptance and intake in

children and also that the effect of preparation methods was vegetable specific. Zeinstra et al.

(2010) investigated the effect of preparation method on sensory preferences for vegetables


23

among 4-‐‑12 years old children and young adults up to the age of 25. They found that all age

groups preferred boiled and steamed vegetables over stir-‐‑fried, grilled, mashed and fried

vegetables. Beyond that, they found that liking of the vegetables was positively associated

with a uniform surface and a well-‐‑known taste of vegetables, moderately associated with a

granular texture and negatively associated with brown colouring.

2.8 Sub-‐‑conclusion

In the above-‐‑mentioned sections, it is described that the intake of fruits and vegetables among

children today do not meet the recommendations, even though they are important for human

health. The children’s food preferences are formed based on both internal factors including

neophobia and external factors including the preparation method of the vegetable. The food

preferences can be affected by different learnings strategies for instance mere exposure,

flavor-‐‑flavor learning and flavor-‐‑nutrient learning. Studies have shown that the strategy mere

exposure has succeeded in increasing the acceptance of initially disliked foods to the same

level as an initially liked foods and other studies shown that the preparation method of the

vegetable influences the acceptance for the vegetables among children due to sensory

attributes.


24

3. Materials and methods In the following section, the method of the study will be described including a description of

the study design, the conduction of the study, the participants and the statistics used in the

handling of the data.

3.1 Overall study design

The study is a Mere Exposure study and the participants were randomized into one of the six

exposure groups, which include two vegetables (carrot and parsnip) and three preparation

methods (baked, boiled and raw). The samples were called carrot baked (CBA), carrot boiled

(CBO), carrot raw (CR), parsnip baked (PBA), parsnip boiled (PBO) and parsnip raw (PR). The

study design was classified into three phases:

1. Pre-‐‑test: all children tasted samples of both CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO and PR and noted

their liking for each sample.

2. Mere exposure: each of the six groups of children was exposed to a sample of either

CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO or PR depending on which group they were in. This was

repeated eight times during four weeks and the children noted their liking each time.

3. Post-‐‑test: all children tasted samples of both CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO and PR again and

noted their liking for each sample.

3.1.1 Structure of the study design

In the table below, the overall structure of the study design is outlined. The table shows a list

of all the six exposure groups and shows what the participants in the different groups tasted

at the pre-‐‑test, the mere exposures and the post-‐‑test. This design, where all participants

tasted the same at the pre-‐‑test and at the post-‐‑test, was chosen so that the children all could

function as each other’s control group. This design enabled that the development in liking for

the exposed children in the six different exposure groups could be compared to the pre-‐‑ and

post-‐‑test liking of the non-‐‑exposed children/the control group. For instance, the liking of CR

at pre-‐‑ and post-‐‑test of the children who were exposed to CR was compared to the liking at

pre-‐‑ and post-‐‑test of the children, who were not exposed to CR in the mere exposure period.


25

Table 1: Overview of the study design. The groups carrot baked (CBA), carrot boiled (CBO), carrot raw (CR), parsnip baked (PBA), parsnip boiled (PBO) and parsnip raw (PR) are listed in the first column. In the columns “Pre-‐‑test”, “Mere exposure” and “Post-‐‑test”, it is noted what the participants in the different groups tasted at the pre-‐‑test, mere exposures and post-‐‑test.

Group Pre-‐‑test Mere exposure Post-‐‑test

CBA CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR 8 ´ CBA CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR

CBO CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR 8 ´ CBO CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR

CR CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR 8 ´ CR CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR

PBA CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR 8 ´ PBA CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR

PBO CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR 8 ´ PBO CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR

PR CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR 8 ´ PR CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO, PR

3.1.2 The phases of the study

In the following section, the three phases of the study will be described in detail.

3.1.2.1 Pre-‐‑test

The first phase of the study was the pre-‐‑test. All the children were exposed to an

approximately 7 g sample weigh as seen in figure 4 picture B of both CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO

and PR served in transparent plastic jars with lids (Abena A/S, Aabenraa, Denmark), and

noted their liking on a 7-‐‑point facial scale, which will be described later in this section, after

each sample. The samples can be seen in figure 4 picture, C, D, E and F. The six samples of

vegetables were served in a randomised order between classes to eliminate a serving order

effect.

3.1.2.2 Mere exposure

The second phase of the study was the mere exposure phase, which took place two times per

week for four weeks. The children were exposed to an approximately 7 g sample of either

CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO or PR depending on which group they were in. After the tasting, they

noted their liking on the 7-‐‑point facial scale. To simplicity, the randomization of the six

exposure groups was done in between the classes, so all the children in the same class were in

the same exposure group – except from one class in which the children were mixed between

the exposure groups.


26

3.1.2.3 Post-‐‑test

The third phase of the study was the post-‐‑test, which was an exact repetition of the pre-‐‑test. It

took place at the four schools on their last day of the study. Again, the children were exposed

to an approximately 7 g sample of both CBA, CBO, CR, PBA, PBO and PR served in transparent

plastic jars with lids (Abena A/S, Aabenraa, Denmark), and noted their liking on the 7-‐‑point

facial scale. The six samples were served in the same randomised order as at the pre-‐‑test.

3.1.3 Scale for measurement of liking

As a measuring tool for liking, the 7-‐‑point facial scale was used based on a study by Chen et al.

(Chen, 1996), in which it is concluded that the 7-‐‑point facial hedonic scale is a reliably scale

for 5-‐‑year old children. The scale can be seen in the figure 2 below.

Figure 2: 7-‐‑point facial scale.

3.2 Participants

3.2.1 Recruitment of the test participants

The children were recruited from four public schools in Odense. They were all children in

preschool classes in the age group between five and seven years old. The schools that wanted

to participate were informed about the study at a personal meeting. The parents of the

participating children were asked for acceptance through a questionnaire (appendix A) about


27

the children’s liking and intake of carrots and parsnips during a week. Data from 43 children

were excluded from the analysis due to missing acceptance from the parents and the final

number of participating children was 263. However, the teachers on all four schools were

contacted several times in an attempt to get more accepts from parents.

3.2.2 Test participants

The participants in the study were children, who were attending preschool classes in public

schools in Odense. The inclusion criteria were therefore as following:

1. Attending preschool class in public schools in Odense

2. Healthy and no food allergy for relevant vegetables

3. Acceptance from parents

3.2.3 Randomization of participants for mere exposure phase

The recruited children were randomized into six exposure groups for the mere exposure

phase. The randomization was based on the fact that all children in the same class should be

in the same exposure group for practical reasons – and only in one class, the children were

mixed. The randomization subdivision is seen in the table below and the randomization of the

mixed class can be seen in appendix C.

Table 2: Randomization of the classes for the mere exposure phase. CBA=carrot baked, CBO=carrot boiled, CR=carrot raw, PBA=parsnip baked, PBO=parsnip boiled and PR=parsnip raw.

School/class Mere exposure-‐‑group

Hunderupskolen 0.A CR

0.B CBO

0.C CBA

Rosengårdskolen 0.A CBO

0.B CR

0.C Mixed (appendix C)

Sct. Hans skolen 0.X PR

0.Y PBO

0.Z PBA


28

Tingløkkeskolen 0.A PBA

0.B PBO

0.C PR

0.D CBA

3.2.4 Randomization of participants for pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test

For the pre-‐‑test and the post-‐‑test, the samples from the six exposure groups were served in

the following randomized order as seen in the table 3 below. The same structure was used

both for the pre-‐‑test and the post-‐‑test.

Table 3: Randomization of serving order at the pre-‐‑ and the post-‐‑test. CBA=carrot baked, CBO=carrot boiled, CR=carrot raw, PBA=parsnip baked, PBO=parsnip boiled and PR=parsnip raw.

School/class Serving order at pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test

Hunderupskolen 0.A PR, CBO, PBA, PBO, CR, CBA

0.B PBO, CR, CBO, PBA, CBA, PR

0.C CR, CBA, PBO, PR, PBA, CBO

Rosengårdskolen 0.A PBA, CR, CBA, CBO, PR, PBO

0.B CBO, CBA, CR, PBO, PR, PBA

0.C CBA, PBA, PR, CR, CBO, PBO

Sct. Hans skolen 0.X PR, CBA, CBO, PBA, CR, PBO

0.Y PBO, PBA, CR, CBA, PR, CBO

0.Z CR, PR, PBA, PBO, CBO, CBA

Tingløkkeskolen 0.A CR, CBO, CBA, PR, PBA, PBO

0.B PBA, PBO, PR, CBA, CBO, CR

0.C CBO, PR, PBA, CR, CBA, PBO

0.D CBA, PBO, CR, CBO, PBA, PR


29

3.3 Experimental procedure

The general test procedure is described in the following section. Furthermore, the deviations

from the normal procedure are also described.

3.3.1 Pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test procedure

All tests took place in the preschool classrooms at the four participating schools. The tests

were carried out in the late mornings between 9 am and 12 am depending on the class and

school. All tests were carried out before the children had lunch. The children were placed in

their normal seats to make the situation most natural for them. First, the children were

introduced to the 7-‐‑point facial scale where the head of the study went through all the seven

faces on the scale and the children were giving examples of food they associated with the

specific face. Then the teacher handed out the facial scales, which had the specific child’s name

and the exposure group e.g. CR on it, while two assistants handed out the samples and the

dividers, which can be seen in figure 3. The dividers were placed between the children, so that

they could not see each other’s facial features and evaluation, when they tasted the samples to

avoid interaction. The children were told to sit quiet, taste their sample and note their liking.

Afterwards, when they were finished, they put up their hand and the facial scales were

collected. This procedure was repeated six times at both the pre-‐‑test and the post-‐‑test. After

the post-‐‑test, each class were giving a box of local apple juice as thanks.

3.3.2 Mere exposure-‐‑test

The mere exposure tests also took place in the preschool classrooms between 9 am and 12 am

depending on the class and school. The children were placed in their normal seats, and they

had a short introduction each time to the facial scale and to what was going to happen. Then

the dividers were placed between the children and the teacher handed out the facial scales to

each child. The samples of vegetables were handed out and the children were told to taste the

sample quiet and note with ticking which smiley they associated with the sample. Then the

scales were collected and all the plastic jars were thrown out or handed to the teacher.


30

Figure 3: The pictures show the test setup in one class with the dividers between the children.

3.3.3 Deviations from test procedure

The following observations have been done during the test carrying-‐‑out in general for all the

participating classes. First, many of the children were not present at all the mere exposures or

at the pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test and therefore they did not taste the samples the amount of times

that was planned for the study. Next, some of the classes often had young substitute teachers

who did not know the children and had problems to calm the children down. This resulted in

noise and classroom disruptions during the tasting. Furthermore, in some few instances, the

children just had had fruit before the tasting, which could affect the liking of the vegetable

sample tasting compared to when they did not just have had fruit before the tasting.

3.4 Experimental stimuli

3.4.1 Choice of vegetables and preparation methods

The present study aims to compare the development in a familiar and in an unfamiliar

vegetable. The vegetables were chosen based on a study by Beck (2014), which showed that

90 % of adult Danish consumers had a high intake of carrots and 50-‐‑60 % of the consumers

consumed parsnips minimum once a month – therefore the carrot was categorized as a

familiar vegetable and the parsnip was categorized as an unfamiliar vegetable. This was

supported by the questionnaires in the present study. Three different preparation methods

were chosen: baked, boiled and raw. They were chosen based on the assumption that both


31

vegetables are normally prepared in these ways. A group of four adults staff members related

to the study tasted and tested the baked, boiled and raw carrots and parsnips before the study

start to find the optimal size, weight and preparation time of the baked, boiled and raw

vegetables. The protocol for the preparation of the vegetables can be seen in appendix B. The

vegetables were delivered by AU Årslev. The used carrot cultivar was New Hall and the

parsnips were a mixture of the cultivars Picador and Aromata. All the vegetables were stored

in a cold room at 1°C in AU Årslev during the study.


32

Figure 4: A: The cutting of the vegetables. B: weighing 7 g of a vegetable. C: The carrots in transparent plastic jars, D: The parsnips in transparent plastic jars, E: carrots ready for serving and F: parsnips ready for serving.

3.5 Statistical data processing

All the data from the questionnaires and the children’s liking replies from both pre-‐‑test, the

mere exposure phase and post-‐‑test were entered in Excel and descriptive statistics including

mean, standard deviation and standard error of mean (SEM) were made. The statistical data

processing was done in XLSTAT 19.01 (Addinsoft, New York, United States), which bases its

calculations on least squares mean.

3.5.1 Pre-‐‑test liking

The effect of type of vegetable (familiar versus unfamiliar) was tested by a one-‐‑way ANOVA,

as there is only one factor – the type of vegetable. The null hypothesis (H0) was that the type

of vegetable did not have an effect on the liking. Afterwards, a one-‐‑way ANOVA was done to

see if the preparation method had an effect on the liking with the H0 that the type of

preparation method did not have an effect on the liking. Both tests were based on the liking

scores from the pre-‐‑test. In case of a p-‐‑value <0.05, the supplemental post hoc test Tukey HSD

was run to see between which groups the differences occurred.

A two-‐‑way ANOVA was done to test if the effect of the type of vegetable (familiar versus

unfamiliar) and type of preparation method had an effect on the liking with the H0 that there

was no effect of the type of vegetable and type of preparation method on liking. The test was

also based on the liking scores from the pre-‐‑test. Also here, a supplemental post hoc test


33

Tukey HSD was run.

3.5.2 Test for the effect of mere exposure on liking within the groups

A two-‐‑way ANOVA test was done to test if the mere exposure within the six different exposure

groups had an effect on the liking scores from pre-‐‑test through all exposure tests to post-‐‑test

with the H0 that mere exposure did not have an effect on liking.

3.5.3 Test for the effect of gender on liking

The effect of gender on liking was tested by a one-‐‑way ANOVA based on the liking scores from

the pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test with the H0 that gender did not have an effect on the liking.

3.5.4 Test for the effect of level of neophobia on liking

The children were divided into three groups based on their scores from the FNSC based on

literature (Falciglia, Couch, Gribble, Pabst, & Frank, 2000). The groups were as followed: Not

neophobic (scores from 0-‐‑30), Neither neophobic or not neophobic (scores from 31-‐‑40) and

Neophobic (scores from 41-‐‑70). The effect of the level of neophobia on liking was tested by a

one-‐‑way ANOVA based on the liking scores from the pre-‐‑test and the post-‐‑test with the H0

that the level of neophobia did not have an effect on the liking score. Beyond this, a two-‐‑way

ANOVA was done to see if the level of neophobia and the type of vegetable (familiar versus

unfamiliar) had an effect on the liking score.

3.5.5 Correlation tests

Pearson’s correlation test was used to test the correlation between the children’s liking of

carrots and parsnips in relation to the children’s intake of carrots and parsnips reported by

parents. Finally, the correlation between the children’s liking of carrots and parsnips reported

by parents in relation to the children’s liking score of the carrots and parsnips at the pre-‐‑test

was also tested by the Pearson’s correlation test.


34

4. Results In the following section, the key results of the study will be presented starting with the basic

data on the participants, followed by the results concerning the type of vegetable, type of

preparation method and mere exposure. And at last, the results based on the questionnaires

completed by the parents are presented. In case of significant differences between groups,

they will be marked with an A, B, C etc. depending on their grouping from the Tukey HSD test.

4.1 Participants

The distribution of the participants is shown in table 4. The table shows that the total number

of participants were 263 children, of which 148 were boys and 115 were girls. This results in

a percentage of boys of 56.3% and a percentage of girls of 43.7%.

Table 4: Distribution of participants in the six exposure groups: baked carrot (CBA), boiled carrot (CBO), raw carrot (CR), baked parsnip (PBA), boiled parsnip (PBO) and raw parsnip (PR).

CBA CBO CR PBA PBO PR Total %

Girls 19 19 20 18 17 22 115 43.7

Boys 23 26 23 27 26 23 148 56.3

Total 42 45 43 45 43 45 263 100

4.2 Pre-‐‑test liking

First, the effect of the type of vegetable (familiar versus less unfamiliar) on liking was tested

based on data from the pre-‐‑test. The results showed that there was a significant effect of the

type of vegetable on the liking score with a p-‐‑value=<0.0001 (appendix D) as the familiar

carrots had a significantly higher liking score with a LS mean of 4.6 compared to the

unfamiliar parsnips, which had a LS mean liking score of 3.6. This is illustrated in figure 5

below.


35

Figure 5: Pre-‐‑test mean liking for carrots and parsnips. X-‐‑axis shows the type of vegetable and the y-‐‑axis shows the liking scale from 1-‐‑7.

The effect of the preparation method on liking at pre-‐‑test was also tested. The results showed

that the type of preparation method had a significant effect on the liking scores at the pre-‐‑test

with a p-‐‑value=<0.0001 (appendix E). The raw preparation method had the significantly

highest liking, the baked preparation method had the significantly second highest liking and

the boiled preparation method had the significantly lowest liking score (appendix E), which is

illustrated in figure 6 below.

Figure 6: Pre-‐‑test liking for preparation methods. The x-‐‑axis shows the type of preparation method and the y-‐‑axis shows the liking scale from 1-‐‑7.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Carrot Parsnip

Liking score

Vegetable

Type of vegetable (familiar versus unfamiliar) and liking at pre-‐‑test

AB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Baked Boiled Raw

Liking score

Preparation method

Type of preparation method and liking at pre-‐‑test

A

BC


36

The results from the test of the effect of the type of vegetable (familiar versus unfamiliar) and

the type of preparation method showed that there was a significant interaction effect of the

type of vegetable and the type of preparation method on liking with a p-‐‑value=0.0001

(appendix F). As seen in figure 7 below, the raw carrot (CR) had a significantly higher liking

compared to the other five groups and the boiled parsnip (PBO) had the significantly lowest

liking. The remaining four groups (CBA, CBO, PBA and PR) did not differ significantly from

each other.

Figure 7: Interaction effect of the type of vegetable and the type of preparation method on pre-‐‑test liking between all six exposure groups: baked carrots (CBA), boiled carrots (CBO), raw carrots (CR), baked parsnips (PBA), boiled parsnips (PBO) and raw parsnips (PR). The x-‐‑axis shows the type of vegetable and preparation method and the y-‐‑axis shows the liking score from 1-‐‑7.

4.3 Mere exposure

The effect of mere exposure on liking within the six exposure groups was tested and the result

showed that there were no significant differences in liking within the groups from pre-‐‑test to

post-‐‑test. However, as it can be seen in figure 8 the liking was in general increasing and the

highest liking score was obtained at exposure number 8 in the groups CBA, PBA, PBO and PR.

In the CBO group the highest liking was obtained at the post-‐‑test, while the liking in the CR

group was almost unchanged from pre-‐‑test to post-‐‑test. Figure 8 also shows that CR had the

highest liking through pre-‐‑test to post-‐‑test and that PBO had the lowest liking almost from

pre-‐‑test to post-‐‑test. In relation to the effect of preparation method on liking, figure 8 shows

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

CBA CBO CR PBA PBO PR

Liking score

Preparation method and vegetable

Type of vegetable and type of prepraration method -‐‑ liking at pre-‐‑test

B B

A

B

CB


37

that the raw preparation method did not influence the liking of the familiar carrot over mere

exposures, as the liking remained the same, however the liking of the unfamiliar parsnip

increased slightly. Also, both the baked carrot and parsnip increased slightly in liking as well

as the boiled carrot and parsnip. Figure 8 shows that the liking of preparation method in

general was higher in the familiar carrot compared to the unfamiliar parsnip. It was also seen

that the liking of PR, CBA, PBA and PBO decreased from exposure no. 8 to post-‐‑test.

Figure 8: Liking from pre-‐‑test to post-‐‑test among the exposed children. X-‐‑axis shows the exposure number and the y-‐‑axis shows the liking score from 1-‐‑7.

It was also tested, if there were any differences in liking between the exposure groups at the

different exposure numbers. The results showed that there was a significant difference

(p=<0.0001) in the liking between the groups at the pre-‐‑test. CR had significantly higher liking

compared to PBO, PBA, CBA, CBO and PR. PR and CBO had significantly higher liking than

PBO. At the first exposure, there was a significant difference in liking between the groups as

CR had significantly higher liking compared to PBO and PBA (p=0.003). At the second mere

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Pretest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Posttest

Liking score

Liking in the mere exposure period



38

exposure, CR had significantly higher liking compared to PBO and CBA (p=0.002). At the third

mere exposure, CR, CBO and PR had the significantly highest liking compared to PBO. At the

fourth mere exposure, CR had a significantly higher liking compared to PBO and PBA, whereas

PR and CBO had a significantly higher liking compared to PBO (p=0.0001). At the fifth

exposure, CR had a significantly higher liking compared to PBO and PBA, whereas CBO had a

significantly higher liking compared to PBO (p=0.001). At the sixth mere exposure, there was

also a significant difference (p=0.003) in the liking between the exposure groups as CR and

CBO had the significantly highest liking compared to PBO. At the second last mere exposure,

CR had a significantly higher liking than PBA (p=0.05). There was no significant difference

between the groups at mere exposure eight, but in the post-‐‑test CR had significantly higher

liking compared to PBA, PBO and CBA. CBO had significantly higher liking than PBA and PBO

(p=<0.0001) (appendix G).

The effect of mere exposure on liking was also tested between the exposed children and the

non-‐‑exposed children at pre-‐‑test, the 4. exposure (only exposed children) and post-‐‑test. The

results (appendix G) are illustrated in figure 9 below. The results show that there were no

differences in liking between exposed and non-‐‑exposed children at pre-‐‑test or post-‐‑test

within the CBA (figure 9, A) and the CR (figure 9, E) group. In the CBO (figure 9, C) group,

results showed that the non-‐‑exposed children had a significantly lower liking at the pre-‐‑test

and post-‐‑test compared to the exposed children’s liking at the 4. exposure and post-‐‑test. In the

PBA-‐‑group (figure 9, B), the exposed children had a significantly higher liking at the 4.

exposure compared to the non-‐‑exposed children’s liking at the post-‐‑test. In the PBO-‐‑group

(figure 9, D), the exposed children had a significantly higher liking at the post-‐‑test compared

to the non-‐‑exposed children’s liking at post-‐‑test. In the PR group (figure 9, F), the exposed

children had a significantly higher liking at pre-‐‑test, 4. exposure and post-‐‑test compared to

the non-‐‑exposed children’s liking at post-‐‑test. These results show that the mere exposure has

had an effect compared to the non-‐‑exposed children within all exposure groups except CBA

and CR.


39

Figure 9: A: Mean liking for exposed and non-‐‑exposed children at pre-‐‑test, 4. exposure (only exposed children) and post-‐‑test. A: carrot baked (CBA), B: parsnip baked (PBA), C: carrot boiled (CBO), D: parsnip boiled (PBO), E: carrot raw (CR) and F: parsnip raw (PR).

1234567

Liking score

CBA A

1234567

Liking score

PBAB

A

ABBAAB

1234567

Liking score

CBOC

ABB

AA

B

1234567

Liking score

PBOD

AB AB ABA

B

1234567

Liking score

CRE

1234567

Liking score

PRF

ABAA A

B


40

4.4 Effect of gender on liking

The effect of gender on liking was tested at the pre-‐‑test and the results (appendix H) showed

that there were no significant differences in liking between the gender in the different groups

except in the PR group (p-‐‑value=0.026), where the boys had a significantly higher liking

compared to the girls (appendix H), which is illustrated in figure 10.

Figure 10: Pre-‐‑test: liking distributed in gender in the six exposure groups baked carrot (CBA), boiled carrot (CBO), raw carrot (CR), baked parsnip (PBA), boiled parsnip (PBO) and raw parsnip (PR). The y-‐‑axis shows the liking scale from 1-‐‑7.

There were also no significant differences (appendix H) in the liking between gender at the

post-‐‑test, which is illustrated in figure 11 below.

Figure 11: Post-‐‑test: liking distributed in gender in the six exposure groups baked carrot (CBA), boiled carrot (CBO), raw carrot (CR), baked parsnip (PBA), boiled parsnip (PBO) and raw parsnip (PR). The y-‐‑axis shows the liking scale from 1-‐‑7.

1234567


Mean liking

Pre-‐‑test liking and gender

Boy Girl

A B

1234567


Mean liking

Post-‐‑test liking and gender

Boy Girl


41

4.5 Effect of level of neophobia on liking

The children were divided into three neophobia groups based on their score from the FNSC

and table 5 shows the distribution in numbers, whereas figure 12 shows the distribution in %.

Table 5: The number of children in the three Neophobia-‐‑groups.

Groups Number of children Not neophobic 84 Neither neophobic or not neophobic 73 Neophobic 105 Total 262

Figure 12: The %-‐‑distribution of the neophobia groups.

The effect of the level of neophobia on liking both at pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test was tested and the

results showed that there was a significant effect of the level of neophobia on liking at both

pre-‐‑test (p-‐‑value=0.000) and post-‐‑test (p-‐‑value=<0.0001) (appendix I). At the pre-‐‑test, the

group “Not neophobic” had a significantly higher liking compared to the “Neophobic”, which

can be seen in figure 13.

Not neophobic32%

Neither neophobic or not

neophobic28%

Neophobic40%

%-‐‑Distribution of neophobia


42

Figure 13: Pre-‐‑test liking and level of neophobia. The x-‐‑axis shows the three neophobia-‐‑groups and the y-‐‑axis shows the liking scale from 1-‐‑7.

At the post-‐‑test, the group “Not neophobic” had the significantly highest liking score, the

“Neither neophobic or not” group had the second highest liking and the group “Neophobic”

had the significantly lowest liking (appendix I). This is illustrated in figure 14 below.

Figure 14: Post-‐‑test liking and level of neophobia. The x-‐‑axis shows the three neophobia-‐‑groups and the y-‐‑axis shows the liking scale from 1-‐‑7.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not neophobic Neither neophobic or not Neophobic

Mean liking

Level of neophobia

Pre-‐‑test liking and level of neophobia

A BAB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not neophobic Neither neophobic or not Neophobic

Mean liking

Level of neophobia

Post-‐‑test liking and level of neophobia

A B C


43

Furthermore, it was also tested at both pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test if there was an interaction effect

of the type of vegetable (familiar versus less unfamiliar) and the level of neophobia on the

liking. At the pre-‐‑test, the results showed that there was a significant difference (p-‐‑value=

0.0001) in liking, which is illustrated in figure 15. The “carrot not neophobic” group had

significantly higher liking than “parsnip neophobic”, “parsnip neither neophobic or not”,

“parsnip not neophobic” and “carrot neophobic”. “Carrot neither neophobic or not” had

significantly higher liking than “parsnip neophobic”, “parsnip neither neophobic or not” and

“parsnip not neophobic”. “Carrot neophobic” had significantly higher liking compared to

“parsnip neophobic” and “parsnip neither neophobic or not”. All p-‐‑values can be seen in

appendix I. As seen in figure 15, the familiar carrot had the highest liking regardless of the

level of neophobia and the unfamiliar parsnip has the lowest liking regardless of the level of

neophobia.

Figure 15: Pre-‐‑test: liking, level of neophobia and type of vegetable. The x-‐‑axis shows the interaction between type of vegetable and neophobia-‐‑group and the y-‐‑axis shows the liking scale from 1-‐‑7.

At the post-‐‑test, the results also showed a significant difference (p-‐‑value = <0.0001) in the

liking, which can be seen in the figure 16 below. Again, it is seen that the familiar carrot had

the highest liking compared to the unfamiliar parsnip regardless of level of neophobia. The

results showed that the two groups “carrot not neophobic” and “carrot neither neophobic or

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Carrot -‐‑ Not neophobic

Carrot -‐‑ Neither neophobic or not

Carrot -‐‑Neophobic

Parsnip -‐‑ Not neophobic

Parsnip -‐‑ Neither neophobic or not

Parsnip -‐‑Neophobic

Mean liking

Pre-‐‑test liking, level of neophobia and type of vegetable

A

DDCDBC

AB


44

not” had significantly higher liking than “parsnip neophobic”, “parsnip neither neophobic or

not”, “parsnip not neophobic” and “carrot neophobic”. Furthermore, the “carrot neophobic”

group had significantly higher liking compared to “parsnip neophobic” and “parsnips neither

neophobic or not” and that “parsnip not neophobic” had significantly higher liking than

“parsnip neophobic”. All p-‐‑values can be seen in appendix I.

Figure 16: Post-‐‑test: liking, level of neophobia and type of vegetable. The x-‐‑axis shows the interaction between type of vegetable and neophobia-‐‑group and the y-‐‑axis shows the liking scale from 1-‐‑7.

4.6 The correlation tests

The correlation between the children’s intake and the children’s liking of both carrots and

parsnips reported by parents was tested. The results showed a significant (p-‐‑value= 0.000)

positive, medium-‐‑strong correlation between the children’s liking and the children’s intake of

carrots reported by parents with a Pearson’s coefficient = 0.6 (appendix J). The liking and the

intake of carrots in percentage can be seen figure 17 and 18 below. The results also showed a

significant (p-‐‑value=0.000) positive, medium-‐‑strong relation between the children’s liking

and the children’s intake of parsnips reported by parents with a Pearson’s coefficient = 0.520

(appendix J). The liking and the intake of parsnips in percentage can be seen in figure 19 and

20 below.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Carrot -‐‑ Not neophobic

Carrot -‐‑ Neither neophobic or not

Carrot -‐‑Neophobic

Parsnip -‐‑ Not neophobic

Parsnip -‐‑ Neither neophobic or not

Parsnip -‐‑Neophobic

Mean liking

Post-‐‑test liking, level of neophobia and type of vegetable

AA

B BC CD D


45

Figure 17: A: Liking of carrots in % reported by parents.

Figure 18: Intake of carrots in % reported by parents.

2% 1% 2%

7%

22%

42%

24%

Liking of carrots in % reported by parents

Not like at all

Not like

Not like a little

Neither like or not like

Like a little

Like

Like a lot

23%

53%

13%

9%

2%

Intake of carrots in % reported by parents

Daily

2-‐‑6 times per week

1 time per week

< 1 time per week

Never


46

Figure 19: A: Liking of parsnips in % reported by parents.

Figure 20: Intake of parsnips in % reported by parents

The correlation of the children’s liking of carrots and parsnips reported by parents and the

children’s liking of carrots (CBA, CBO and CR) and parsnips (PBA, PBO and PR) at pre-‐‑test was

also tested. In the CBA group, the results showed a significant (p=0.005) Pearson’s coefficient

of 0.178 and there was therefore a weak positive relationship between the parents reported

liking and the children’s liking for CBA at the pre-‐‑test. In the CR group, there was a significant

(p-‐‑value=0.000) positive Pearson coefficient of 0.368, which means that also here there was a

32%

15%13%

29%

9%

1% 1%

Liking of parsnips in % reported by parents

Not like at all

Not like

Not like a little

Neither like or not like

Like a little

Like

Like a lot

0%0%3%

39%

58%

Intake of parsnips in % reported by parents

Daily

2-‐‑6 times per week

1 time per week

< 1 time per week

Never


47

correlation between the parents reported liking and the children’s liking of CR. In the PBO,

there was a significant (p-‐‑value=0.004) positive correlation with a Pearson coefficient of

0.200. In the groups CBO, PBA and PR the results showed no significant correlation between

the liking reported by parents and the children’s liking at pre-‐‑test. The results are shown in

figure 21, where a star marks the significant correlations.

Figure 21: Correlation between parents reported liking and children's pre-‐‑test liking. The x-‐‑axis shows the correlation between the children’s liking reported by parents and the six exposure groups baked carrot (CBA), boiled carrot (CBO), raw carrot (CR), baked parsnip (PBA), boiled parsnip (PBO) and raw parsnip (PR). The y-‐‑axis shows the liking scale from 1-‐‑7.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Mean liking

Correlation between liking reported by parents and children's pre-‐‑test liking

Parent Child

*

*

*


48

5. Discussion In the following section, the presented results from the study will be discussed in reference to

what was expected based on literature.

The results showed that the children gave the familiar carrot a significantly higher liking

compared to the unfamiliar parsnip at the pre-‐‑test. This was expected based on a previous

mentioned study by Beck (2014) who documented that 90% of the Danish consumers have a

high intake of carrots. This was also supported by the results from the questionnaires, as the

parents reported that 66% of the children liked a lot/liked carrots (figure 17) and 76% of the

children consumed carrots daily or 2-‐‑6 times per week and 89% consumed carrots in an

interval of once a week to daily (figure 18). Beck (2014) also found that only 50-‐‑60 of the

Danish consumers had parsnips minimum once a month. This was also supported by the

results from the questionnaires, where the parents reported that 47% of the children did not

like parsnips (figure 19), 58 % of the children never consumed parsnips and 97 % of the

children had an intake of parsnips in an interval from less than once a week to never (figure

20). These results where a familiar vegetable has higher liking compared to an unfamiliar

vegetable is consistent with the results of a study by Dinnella et al. (Dinnella, et al., 2016) who

found a close positive relationship between familiarity and the stated liking.

The results from the effect of preparation methods showed that the highest ratings of liking

for carrots and parsnips were given, when the children ate the two vegetables “raw”. The

preparation method baking had the significantly second highest liking and the boiling had the

significantly lowest liking. Based on the answers from the questionnaires, it was also expected

that the raw preparation method would have the highest liking as many children often eat

raw carrots (appendix K). Raw vegetables are in other words familiar to the children and two

studies also point out that it seems as if children like crunchiness in vegetables (1998) (1995),

even though raw vegetables can be difficult for some children to manage, as they can be hard

to chew. However, this liking of a crunchy texture could be the reason why raw parsnips were

also liked. Other studies by Poelman et al. (2011) and Zeinstra et al. (2010) found that boiled

vegetables had the highest acceptance compared to the other tested preparation methods e.g.

baked, grilled, mashed, stir-‐‑fried and deep fried. However, none of the studies used raw as a


49

preparation method. According to Zeinstra et al. (2010), the high acceptance of boiled

vegetables in their study was related to the familiar vegetable colour and taste, a uniform

surface without brown colouring and the relatively crunchy texture. They also found that one

important explanation for the high acceptance of boiled vegetables was that the children were

most familiar with this preparation method. In general, the liking of vegetables was strongly

influenced by the appearance of the vegetable and a uniform surface with no brown colouring

was related to a high liking. However, the boiled vegetables were the least liked in the present

study and this could be due to the fact that the vegetables were served cold and this is not

how the children are familiar with boiled vegetables e.g. from dinner at home.

The interaction effect between type of vegetable (familiar versus unfamiliar) and preparation

method showed that the raw carrot had the significantly highest liking and the boiled parsnip

had the significantly lowest liking. This was also expected, as the children are most familiar

with the raw carrots and probably not familiar with the boiled parsnips based on the

questionnaires (appendix K).

As mentioned in the introduction, the carrot and parsnip were chosen in the present study to

investigate the development in liking over mere exposures of a familiar versus an unfamiliar

vegetable. This is in the present study related to previous studies that have tested an initially

liked and disliked food. For instance, Maier et al. (2007) showed that after eight exposures,

the intake of the initially liked and disliked vegetables had reached the same level for most of

the participants. Additionally, Rollins et al. (2010) also found that highly liked food remains

liked and the disliked foods become more liked after a while. The same was seen in a study by

Hausner et al. (2012), where most of the participants who had been exposed to an initially

disliked food increased their acceptance for the food after nine exposures to the same level as

the initially liked food. Based on these studies, it was expected in our study that the familiar

carrot would have a higher liking at the pre-‐‑test compared to unfamiliar parsnip, but that the

liking of the parsnip would increase during the mere exposures as the children got more

familiar with it. This means that after the period of mere exposure, the liking of the two

vegetables would be more similar, as the liking of the familiar carrot would remain the same

or maybe increase slightly. However, this was not the case in the present study as the

unfamiliar parsnip did not reach the same level of liking as the familiar carrot. As seen in


50

figure 8, the vegetables and preparation methods that had the highest liking at pre-‐‑test were

CR, then PR and then CBO, which means that CBA had the third lowest liking, PBA had the

second lowest liking and PBO had the lowest liking. At the post-‐‑test, CR, CBO and PR had the

highest liking and CBA, PBA and PBO had the lowest liking. This means that CR remained the

most liked vegetable, which was expected, and then PBO also remained the least liked

vegetable and did not reach the same liking as the familiar carrot. This could be explained by

the limitations of the study, which are described in detail in the end of the discussion.

The results from the effect of mere exposure (figure 8) showed that there was no significant

effect of mere exposure on liking within the exposure groups from pre-‐‑test to post-‐‑test or

between some of the exposures among the exposed children. But even though there was no

significant difference in liking, the results showed a tendency as the mean liking increased

and had the highest liking at exposure no. 8 in the groups CBA, PBA, PBO and PR and the

highest liking at post-‐‑test in the CBO group. The liking in the CR group was unchanged, which

is consistent with literature (Caton, et al., 2013). The results showed that the raw preparation

method did not influence the liking of the familiar carrot over mere exposures, as the liking

remained the same, however the liking of the unfamiliar parsnip increased slightly. Also, both

the baked carrot and parsnip increased slightly in liking as well as the boiled carrot and

parsnip. The results showed that the liking of preparation method in general was higher in the

familiar carrot compared to the unfamiliar parsnip. These results indicate that mere exposure

and preparation methods did have some effect on liking of the vegetables, however it was not

enough to make the unfamiliar parsnip as liked as the familiar carrot. This can be explained by

the fact that there are several factors in the study, which can have influenced the results of the

effect of mere exposure. First, a higher number of repeated exposures could be necessarily to

obtain a significant effect of mere exposure on liking. The literature that are concerned with

this topic is not consistent with the number of exposures needed to see an increase in liking,

acceptance or intake. One study found an increase in intake after five exposures (2012), two

other studies have found an effect after eight to nine exposures (Lakkakula A, 2010) (2007),

while another study needed up to 15 exposures to enhance the preference (Horne P. J., 2004).

These inconsistent numbers of mere exposures are probably due to different types of foods,

age groups and study designs in the literature. For instance, vegetables need a higher number

of exposures compared to fruits, the age groups are differing from infants to school children


51

or even older and the design of the study are often designed with a pre-‐‑test, a post-‐‑test, a pre-‐‑

determined number of mere exposures, which can give some limitations. An important factor

that might have influenced the results of no significant effect of mere exposure on liking in our

study is the children’s level of neophobia. Almost 40% of the children were categorized as

“Neophobic”, which means that they might require more support and adaption compared to

the other children, and the mere exposure might not be successful by itself in increasing these

children’s liking (Wild, Graaf, & Jager, 2017). This will be discussed later. Other factors that

can have influenced the results could be the effect of group dynamics in the class room, noises

and not sedentary children that have influenced the other children as they were tasting the

samples. Also, the temperature of the vegetables can have influenced the final result as it is

not common to eat boiled and baked carrot and parsnip cold. As mentioned shortly in the

results associated figure 8, it is also relevant to mention that the liking of PR, CBA, PBA and

PBO decreased from exposure no. 8 to post-‐‑test. This can possibly be explained by the

boredom effect – not due to the number of exposures, but due to the high number of tastings

at the post-‐‑test.

As mentioned in the section Materials and methods, the study was designed so that it was

possible to compare the non-‐‑exposed children’s liking with the exposed children’s liking at

pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test and in that way see if there was an effect of being exposed to an

vegetable/preparation method compared to not being exposed. Therefore, it was tested if

there was a difference in the liking between the exposed children and the non-‐‑exposed

children within all six exposure groups at pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test. Here, the results showed that

there was no significant difference in liking between the exposed children and the non-‐‑

exposed children in the CR and CBA group. In relation to the CR, this result was expected, as

the raw carrot was the initially most liked and most frequently consumed (appendix K). In the

CBO group, results showed that the non-‐‑exposed children had a significantly lower liking at

the pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test compared to the exposed children’s liking at the 4. exposure and

post-‐‑test. In the PBA-‐‑group, the exposed children had a significantly higher liking at the 4.

exposure compared to the non-‐‑exposed children’s liking at the post-‐‑test. In the PBO-‐‑group,

the exposed children had a significantly higher liking at the post-‐‑test compared to the non-‐‑

exposed children’s liking at post-‐‑test. In the PR group, the exposed children had a significantly

higher liking at pre-‐‑test, 4. exposure and post-‐‑test compared to the non-‐‑exposed children’s


52

liking at post-‐‑test. These results show that the mere exposure has had an effect on liking in

this study when the liking from mere exposure is compared to the liking from the non-‐‑

exposed children/control group. Therefore, this study support the already existing studies,

who have also found an effect of mere exposure (2007) (2012) (2012).

In relation to the effect of gender on liking, it was expected that there was no difference

between the gender based on a study by Fagt et al. (2015) about the Danish people’s dietary

habits from 2011 to 2013. This study showed that there was almost no difference in the

average daily intake of vegetables between boys and girls in the age group 4-‐‑9 years old. The

boys had an average daily intake of 158 grams and the girls had an average daily intake of 157

grams. The results from this study shows that the boys have a significantly higher liking of the

raw parsnip (PR) at the pre-‐‑test compared to the girls. But otherwise, there are no significant

differences between the genders at the pre-‐‑test or at the post-‐‑test. The significant difference

in the PR-‐‑group at the pre-‐‑test could be due to randomness, as there is no explained cause of

this. While our results showed no significant difference in liking of vegetables between

gender, a review of Rasmussen et al. (2006) found that “girls tend to have a higher or more

frequent intake of most of fruit and/or vegetables than boys” in twenty-‐‑seven out of 49 papers.

Beyond that, in eighteen out 49 papers they found no difference in the intake. This shows that

there is some inconsistence regarding the difference in intake or liking between gender.

One of the factors that have already been mentioned to influence the acceptance of vegetables

is the children’s level of neophobia and therefore it was relevant to classify the children of the

study in different groups based on their level of neophobia to see the effect of the level of

neophobia on liking. The level and grouping of neophobia was calculated based on the

parent’s answers at the Food Neophobia Scale for Children (FNSC), which showed that almost

40% of the children were categorized as “Neophobic”. The results of the effect of level of

neophobia on liking showed that the “Not neophobic” group had the significantly highest

liking compared to the “Neophobic” group at the pre-‐‑test. At the post-‐‑test, the group “Not

neophobic” had the significantly highest liking again, and the group “Neophobic” had the

significantly lowest liking. These results were expected as it was anticipated that the children

with a general low level of neophobia would also have a higher liking of both the familiar

carrot and the unfamiliar parsnip compared to the children with a general high level of


53

neophobia as they do not like new foods. This also means that these results are consistent

with already existing literature as Howard et al. (2012) found that food neophobia was

associated with liking and trying fewer vegetables. The level of neophobia was also tested to

see the response to a familiar vegetable compared to an unfamiliar vegetable. It was expected

that the familiar carrot in general would have a higher liking compared to the unfamiliar

parsnip regardless of level of neophobia. Again, the results showed (figure 15+16) what was

expected, as the children in all three groups of levels of neophobia gave the carrot a higher

liking compared to the parsnip. The “Not neophobic” group with carrot had the highest liking

and the “Neophobic” group with the parsnip had the lowest liking at both pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑

test. Again, this is consistent with the questionnaires, in which the parents reported that the

children in general often had carrots and almost never had parsnips (appendix K).

Furthermore, our results also indicate that the answers to FNSC from the parents had a high

validity as their answers matches the children’s liking. As the results from the FNSC are

consistent with the results from the children’s liking at both pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test, this shows

that the FNSC can still be used today even though it was developed in 1994. Recent studies by

Damsbo-‐‑Svendsen et al. (2017)(2017) have questioned the applicability of the FNSC today, as

the accessibility of foods from ethnic countries, which are the content of some of the

questions in the FNSC, has increased since then and therefore some of the questions are not

relevant anymore.

The final results about the correlation between the children’s liking and the children’s intake

of both carrots and parsnips reported by the parents showed a significant, positive, medium-‐‑

strong correlations coefficient of 0,6 between the children’s liking and the children’s intake of

carrots reported by the parents. The same was the case with the children’s liking and the

children’s intake of parsnips reported by parents, which gave a result of a significant, positive

and medium strong correlation coefficient of 0,52. These results showed that there was a

stronger correlation between the liking and intake of carrots compared to parsnips. As the

Pearson’s coefficient is not close to 1 in any of the cases, it showed that there was not a strong

relationship between the children’s liking and intake reported by the parents, which could

indicate that even though the children have a high liking as for the carrot, it does not

necessarily mean that they have a similar high intake and reverse with the parsnip. Otherwise

the results show that the validity of the questionnaires are not 100 %, but this has not been


54

the case in the other cases where results from the questionnaires have been used. Therefore,

this could indicate that it is not necessarily possible to equate liking of a food 100 % with the

intake of a food based on questionnaires – but it still gives an indication of the relationship

between liking and intake. In this case, the indication of the relationship between children’s

liking and intake reported by parents is that when the children have a high liking, they also

have a high intake and reverse with the parsnip – a low liking and a low intake.

In extension of the previous section, the relationship between the children’s liking reported

by the parents and the children’s liking at pre-‐‑test was also tested. It showed no significant

correlation between liking of carrots reported by parents and children’s liking of CBO and also

no significant correlation between children’s liking of parsnips reported by parents and

children’s liking of PBA and PR. However, in the carrots-‐‑group there was a significant

correlation between the children’s liking of carrots reported by parents and the children’s

liking of CBA and CR at pre-‐‑test with the strongest relation to the CR. This could indicate that

the parents particularly have thought of raw carrots, when they reported the children’s liking

of carrots together with the fact that the CR had the highest liking of the different preparation

methods in the carrot-‐‑group at pre-‐‑test. This is supported by the fact that the parents also

reported that the carrots often were eaten raw (appendix K). In the parsnip-‐‑group, there was

only a significant correlation between the children’s liking of parsnips reported by parents

and PBO at pre-‐‑test. This could be due to the fact that the parents reported that the children

did not like parsnips and PBO had the lowest liking at pre-‐‑test of all the parsnips preparation

methods.

Strengths and limitations

The present study has both strengths and limitations. The major strength of the present study

is that the results are based on actual tasting and not only data from questionnaires. Beyond

that, the tasting sessions took place in a familiar and trusted environment for the children

compared to tastings in laboratories. This means that the setting does not influence the

results negatively as related to an unnatural and forced situation in a laboratory. However,

the chosen setting might cause some other problems, which will be discussed further down in

this section.


55

The present study also has some limitations. First, there is a limitation in study-‐‑design as the

study only is looking at the short-‐‑term outcomes of mere exposure of the three different

preparation methods of the two different vegetables. So, the lack of follow-‐‑up measurements

is a limitation as some other studies have prioritised both 3-‐‑ and 6-‐‑months follow-‐‑up to see

the long-‐‑term effect of the mere exposures as this is very relevant to see if the effects persists

(2007). In relation to this, a second limitation to the study design is that there were only

scheduled eight mere exposures, which were enough to see a result according to some

literature, but this was not realistic as many of the children had several sick days and

therefore were not exposed to a vegetable eight times before the post-‐‑test.

In some of the classes, the test setup functioned as expected, but in some of the other classes

there were several problems, which could have an influence on the results from the children

in the respective classes, which is a limitation. For instance, there were many different

teachers or substitutes during the tastings and this resulted in some cases in turbulence in the

classroom and this caused increased talking between the children while they were tasting the

vegetables. This could therefore also have influenced the results. The 7-‐‑point facial scale,

which was used as a measuring tool for the children’s liking of the two vegetables, can have

been a limitation as it has might been too detailed or complicated with the seven different

faces for some of the children who are slower in their cognitive development (Chen, 1996).

A last limitation of the study design is that the samples with the vegetables were served cold,

which is not how boiled and baked carrots and parsnips usually are eaten, but it was the only

way that was logistical and practical possible and in that way all the samples were also

comparable, as they all had the same temperature, shape and weight. But because of this

limitation, there can be some challenges in transmitting the results from the boiled and baked

vegetables directly into the homes, where the food will be eaten warm and also together with

other foods. Whereas, especially the samples with the raw carrots were served in the way the

children would usually eat them.


56

6. Conclusion The overall objective of the present study was to investigate how three different preparation

methods influenced the liking of a familiar carrot and an unfamiliar parsnip over mere

exposures. The study showed that the children liked the familiar carrot better than the

unfamiliar parsnip and that the children preferred both vegetables raw compared to baked

and boiled. The study found that the learning strategy mere exposure did not have any effect

on liking within the six exposure groups, but that the children who were exposed to a

vegetable increased their liking significantly compared to the children who were not exposed,

except in the CR and CBA group. Hence, it can be concluded based on the results of this study

that mere exposure has an effect on liking of both a familiar and an unfamiliar vegetable,

which is consistent with the literature. The study found that the raw preparation method did

not influence the liking of the familiar carrot over mere exposures, as the liking remained the

same, however the liking of the unfamiliar parsnip increased slightly. Also, both the baked

carrot and parsnip increased slightly in liking as well as the boiled carrot and parsnip. The

results showed that the liking of preparation method in general was higher for the familiar

carrot compared to the unfamiliar parsnip. Based on these results, it can be concluded that

there is a tendency of an increase in liking in all preparation methods over mere exposure and

therefore that preparation methods and mere exposure cane be used to improve the liking of

vegetables.

The liking of both the familiar carrot and the unfamiliar parsnip was not influenced by the

gender of the children -‐‑ except that the boys had a higher liking of PR in the pre-‐‑test.

However, the study found that food neophobia had an effect on liking as the children with low

neophobic status had the highest liking and the children with high neophobic status had the

lowest liking at both pre-‐‑test and post-‐‑test. This could indicate that that neophobic children

need more exposures and/or other learning strategies in order to increase their liking of

familiar and unfamiliar vegetables. The results also showed that the familiar carrot had a

higher liking compared to the unfamiliar parsnip regardless of neophobic status. Based on the

results from the neophobic status, it can be concluded that food neophobia is an important

factor that influences the children’s liking of vegetables. However, more research is needed

both in relation to preparation methods, mere exposure and food neophobia.


57

7. Perspectives As the current intake of vegetables among children still do not meet the recommendations, it

remains important to investigate which factors and learning strategies that can improve the

acceptance and intake. The overall objective of the present study was to investigate how three

preparation methods influenced the liking of a familiar carrot and an unfamiliar parsnip over

mere exposures. The study concluded that the different preparation methods and mere

exposure can improve the liking for vegetables. This means that the learning strategy mere

exposure and different preparation methods can be used both at homes by parents and in

institutions in order to increase the liking and improve the acceptance of both familiar and

unfamiliar vegetables in children. This is important in order to improve the human health in a

bigger perspective. However, more research is needed on the implement of using the strategy

mere exposure at home by the parents, in institutions, schools etc.

In future research, it could be interessting also to involve the parents at home in the period of

mere exposure of the different preparation methods as this is more natural at home. It would

also be interesting to have a higher number of exposures and some follow-‐‑up measurements

to see if the possible effect is maintained after months. In general, more research about the

effect of the preparation method and mere exposure strategy is needed to fully understand

the effect of it.


58

8. References Astrup, A. (2005). Kostradene 2005. Danmarks Fødevareforskning.

Baxter, Jack, & Schröder. (1998). The use of repertory grid method to elicit perceptual data

from primary school children. Food Quality and Preference(9), p. 73.80.

Beck, T. K. (2014). Impact of consumers' bitter taste phenotype, familiarity, liking,

demography and food life style on intake of bitter tasting coarse vegetables. PhD

Thesis, Science and Technology.

Bell, K., & Tepper, B. (2006). Short-‐‑term vegetable intake by young children classified by 6-‐‑n-‐‑

propylthoiuracil bitter-‐‑taste phenotype. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition(84), pp.

245–251.

Betty Ruth Carruth, P. Z. (2004). Prevalence of Picky Eaters among Infants and Toddlers and

Their Caregivers’ Decisions about Offering a New Food.

Birch, L. L., & Fisher, J. O. (1998). Development of eating behaviours among children &

adolescents. Pediatrics(101), pp. 539–549.

Brandi Y. Rollins, E. L. (2010). Stability and change in snack food likes and dislikes from 5 to

11 years. Appetite(55), pp. 371–373.

Capiola, A., & Raudenbush, B. (2012). The Effects of Food Neophobia and Food Neophilia on

Diet and Metabolic Processing. Food and Nutrition Sciences(3), pp. 1397-‐‑1403.

Cardello, A., Schutz, H., Snow, C., & Lesher, L. (2000). Predictors of food acceptance,

consumption and satisfaction in specific eating situations. Food Quality and

Preference(11), pp. 201-‐‑216.

Caton, S. J., Ahern, S. M., Remy, E., Nicklaus, S., Pam, B., & Hetherington, M. M. (2013).

Repetition counts: repeated exposure increases intake of a novel vegetable in UK pre-‐‑

school children compared to flavour–flavour and flavour–nutrient learning. British

Journal of Nutrition(109), pp. 2089–2097.

Chen. (1996). Age Appropriate Hedonic Scales to measure Food Preferrences of Young Children.

Journal of Sensory Studies.

Coulthard, H., Harris, G., & Emmett, P. (2010). Long-‐‑term consequences of early fruit and

vegetable feeding practices in the United Kingdom. Public Health Nutrition(13), pp.

2044-‐‑2051.


59

Cullen, K., Baranowski, T., Owens, E., Marsh, T., Rittenberry, L., & de Moor, C. (2003).

Availability, accessibility, and preferences for fruit, 100% fruit juice, and vegetables

influence children’s dietary behavior. Health Educ Behav(30), pp. 615–26.

Damsbo-‐‑Svendsen M., F. M. (2017). Development of novel tools to measure food neophobia in

children. Appetite.

Damsbo-‐‑Svendsen, M., Bom Frøst, M., & Olsen, A. (2017). A review of instruments developed

to measure food neophobia. Appetite.

Dinnella, C., Morizet, D., Masi, C., Cliceri, D., Depezay, L., Appleton, K. M., . . . Monteleone, E.

(2016). Sensory determinants of stated liking for vegetable names and actual liking for

canned vegetables: A cross-‐‑country study among European adolescents. Appetite(107),

pp. 339-‐‑347.

Donadini, G., Fumi, M., & Porretta, S. (2012). Influence of preparation method on the hedonic

response of preschoolers to raw, boiled or oven-‐‑baked vegetables. LWT -‐‑ Food Science

and Technology(49), pp. 282-‐‑292.

Doveya, T. M., Staples, P. A., Gibson, E. L., & Halfor, J. C. (2007). Food neophobia and

‘picky/fussy’ eating in children: A review.

Fagt, S. (2015). Danskernes kostvaner 2011-‐‑2013, Hovedresultater. DTU Fødevareinstituttet,

Afdeling for Ernæring.

Fagt, S., & Matthiessen, J. (2017). Kostens betydning for børn og unges sundhed og overvægt:

2000-‐‑2013. Afdeling for Risikovurdering og Ernæring. DTU Fødevaresinstituttet.

Falciglia, G., Couch, S., Gribble, L., Pabst, S., & Frank, R. (2000). Food neophobia in childhoold

affects dietary variety. Journal of the American Dietetic association(12), pp. 1474-‐‑1478.

Fildes, A., Jaarsveld, C. H., Wardle, J., & Cooke, L. (2014). Parent-‐‑Administered Exposure to

Increase Children’s Vegetable Acceptance: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Academy of

Nutrition and Dietetics.(6), pp. 881-‐‑888.

Foundation, T. L. (2011). How can the consumption of vegetables in Europe be increased?

France.

Gertrude G. Zeinstra, M. K. (2010). The influence of preparation method on children’s liking

for vegetables. Food Quality and Preference(21), pp. 906–914.

Gibson, E. L., Wardle, J., & Watts, C. J. (1998). Fruit and vegetable consumption, nutritional

knowledge and beliefs in mothers and children. Appetite(31), pp. 205–228.


60

Hausner, H., Hartvig, D. L., Reinbach, H. C., Wendin, K., & Bredie, W. L. (2012). Effects of

repeated exposure on acceptance of initially disliked and liked Nordic snack bars in 9-‐‑

11 year-‐‑old children. Clinical Nutrition(31), pp. 137-‐‑143.

Hausner, H., Olsen, A., & Møller, P. (2012). Mere exposure and flavour–flavour learning

increase 2–3 year-‐‑old children’s acceptance of a novel vegetable. Appetite(58), pp.

1152–1159.

Helland, S. H., Bere, E., Bjørnara, H. B., & Øverby, N. C. (2017). Food neophobia and its

association with intake of fish and other selected foods in a Norwegian sample of

toddlers: A cross-‐‑sectional study. Appetite(114), pp. 110-‐‑117.

Horne, P. J. (2004). Increasing children’s fruit and vegetable consumption. A peer-‐‑modelling

and rewards-‐‑based intervention. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition(58), pp. 1649-‐‑

1660.

Howard, A. J., Mallan, K. M., Byrne, R., Magarey, A., & Daniels, L. A. (2012). Toddlers’ food

preferences. The impact of novel food exposure, maternal preferences and food

neophobia. Appetite (59), pp. 818-‐‑825.

Jennifer M. Schindler, D. C. (2012). Assessing the effect of food exposure on children's

identification and acceptance of fruit and vegetables. Eating Behaviors.

Johnson, S. L. (2016). Developmental and Environmental Influences on Young Children’s

Vegetable Preferences and Consumption. Advanced Nutrition (Suppl)(7), pp. 2200S-‐‑

31S.

Kirby S, B. T. (1995). Children’s fruit and vegetable intake: Socioeconomic, adult child,

regional, and urban-‐‑rural influences. Journal of Nutrition Education(27), pp. 261-‐‑271.

Koidis, A., Rawson, A., & Brunton, N. (2015). Effect of Different Types of Processing and

Storage on the Polyacetylene Profile of Carrots and Parsnips. In V. Preedy, Processing

and Impact on Active Components in Food (pp. 45–53). Academic Press.

Kreutzmann, S., Christensen, L. P., & Edelenbos, M. (2008). Investigation of bitterness in

carrots (Daucus carota L.) based on quantitative chemical and sensory analyses.

LWT(41), pp. 193-‐‑205.

Lakkakula A, G. J. (2010). Repeated taste exposure increases liking for vegetables by low-‐‑

income elementary school children. Appetite(55), pp. 226-‐‑231.

Larson, N., & Story, M. (2009). A review of environmental influences on food choices. Ann

Behav Med (Suppl)(38), pp. S56-‐‑S73.


61

Laureati, M., Bergamaschi, V., & Pagliarini, E. (2015). Assessing childhood food neophobia:

Validation of a scale in Italian primary school children. Food Quality and


Lawless, H., & Heymann, H. (n.d.). Sensory Evaluation of Food, Principles and Practices (Second

Edition ed.). Springer.

Lehto, E., Ray, C., Haukkala, A., Yngve, A., Thorsdottir, I., & Roos, E. (2015). Predicting gender

differences in liking for vegetables and preference for a variety of vegetables among

11-‐‑year-‐‑old children. Appetite.

Maier, A., Chabanet, C., Schaal, B., Issanchou, S., & Leathwood, P. (2007). Effects of repeated

exposure on acceptance of initially disliked vegetables in 7-‐‑month old infants. Food

Quality and Preference(18), pp. 1023–1032.

Mennella, J. (2014). Ontogeny of taste preferences: basic biology and impli-‐‑ cations for health.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (Suppl)(99), pp. 704S–7011S.

Mojet, E. P. (2008). Boredom and the reasons why some new food products fail.

Nicklaus. (2004). A prospective study of food preferences in childhood. Food Quality and


Nicklaus, S. (2009). Development of food variety in children. Appetite(52), pp. 253-‐‑255.

Olsen, A., Ritz, C., Kraaij, L., & Møller, P. (2012). Children’s liking and intake of vegetables: A

school-‐‑based intervention study. Food Quality and Preference(23), pp. 90-‐‑98.

Pliner, P. (1994). Development of measures of food neophobia in children. Appetite, pp. 147-‐‑

163.

Poelman, A. A., Delahunty, C. M., & Graaf, C. d. (2015). Vegetable preparation practices for 5–6

years old Australian children as reported by their parents; relationships with liking

and consumption. Food Quality and Preference(42), pp. 20–26.

Poelman, A., & Delahunty, C. (2011). The effect of preparation method and typicality of colour

on children’s acceptance for vegetables. Food Quality and Preference(22), pp. 355–364.

Poelman, A., Delahunty, C., & de Graaf, C. (2015). Vegetable preparation practices for 5–6

years old Australian children as reported by their parents; relationships with liking

and consumption. (42), pp. 20–26.

Poelman, A., Delahunty, C., & Graaf, C. d. (2013). Cooking time but not cooking method affects

children’s acceptance of Brassica vegetables. Food Quality and Preference(28), pp. 441–

448.


62

Rasmussen, M. (2006). Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and

adolescents: a review of the literature. Part I: quantitative studies. International

Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

R. Bornstein, A. K. (1990). Boredom as a Limiting Condition on the Mere Exposure Effect.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology(5), pp. 791-‐‑800.

Reetica Rekhy, R. M. (2014). Promoting consumption of fruit and vegetables for better health.

Have campaigns delivered on the goals? Appetite(79), pp. 113-‐‑123.

Rollins B, L. E. (2010). Stability and change in snack food likes and dislikes from 5 to 11 years.

Appetite(55), pp. 371-‐‑373.

Rozin, P. (1979). Preference and affect in food selection. Preference Behavior and

Chemoreception, pp. 289-‐‑302.

Sara M. Ahern, S. J. (2013). Eating a Rainbow. Introducing vegetables in the first years of life in

3 European countries.

S. Ahern, S. C. (2014). The root of the problem: increasing root vegetable intake in preschool

children by repeated exposure and flavour flavour learning. Appetite(80), pp. 154-‐‑160.

Siegrist, M., Hartmann, C., & Keller, C. (2013). Antecedents of food neophobia and its

association with eating behavior and food choices. Food Quality and Preference(30), pp.

293-‐‑298.

Sullivan, S. A. (1994, 2). Infant dietary experience and acceptance of solid foods.

Pediatrics(93), pp. 271–277.

Szczesniak, A. (1972). Consumer awareness of and attitudes for food texture: II. Children and

teenagers. Journal of Texture Studies(3), pp. 206-‐‑217.

Tanumihardjo, S., Suri, D., Simon, P., & Goldman, I. (2016). Vegetables of Temperate Climates:

Carrot, Parsnip, and Beetroot. The Encyclopedia of Food and Health(5), pp. 387-‐‑392.

Varming, C., Jensen, K., Møller, S., Brockhoff, P. B., Christiansen, T., Edelenbos, M., . . . Poll, L.

(2004). Eating quality of raw carrots––correlations between flavour compounds,

sensory profiling analysis and consumer liking test. Food Quality and PReference(15),

pp. 531-‐‑540.

Wang X., Q. Y. (2014). Fruit and vegetable consumption and mortality from all causes,

cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and dose-‐‑response meta-‐‑

analysis of prospective cohort studies.


63

WHO. (2013). Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption around the world. Information

sheet. World Health Organization.

Wild, V. W., Graaf, C. d., & Jager, G. (2017). Use of Different Vegetable Products to Increase

Preschool-‐‑Aged Children’s Preference for and Intake of a Target Vegetable: A

Randomized Controlled Trial. JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND

DIETETICS(6), pp. 859-‐‑866.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitutidinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology(9).

Zeinstra. (2010). The influence of preparation method on children’ s liking for vegetables.

Food Quality and Preference(21), pp. 906-‐‑914.


64

9. APPENDIX


65

Appendix A

Spørgeskema til forældre Kære forældre, Dit barns klasse indgår i en undersøgelse, som udføres af en specialestuderende ved Århus Universitet. Formålet er at undersøge, hvordan tilberedningsmetode påvirker, hvor godt børn kan lide grøntsager. I aftale med dit barns skole serverer vi i løbet af november og december måned smagsprøver af gulerødder og pastinak, som dit barn angiver, hvor godt han/hun kan lide. For at få et indblik i børnenes spisevaner bedes du venligst udfylde spørgeskemaet herunder. Besvar venligst spørgsmålene med ét svar, medmindre andet er angivet. Bemærk, hvis du har flere børn i samme klasse, udfyld venligst et spørgeskema for hvert barn. Ved at underskrive på sidste side angiver du, at Århus Universitet må bruge besvarelserne inden for denne undersøgelses formål. Besvarelserne behandles fortroligt og anonymt. Aflever venligst spørgeskemaet til klasselæren senest d. 14/11. Ved spørgsmål, kontakt venligst: [email protected] Dit barns navn

Dit barns køn

q Dreng q Pige

Dit barns fødselsdato og år Dit barns højde Dit barns vægt Lider dit barn af fødevareallergi eller intolerance?

q Nej q Ja, beskriv

hvilke__________________________________________________________________________________

Hvor ofte spiser dit barn gulerødder? q Dagligt q 2-‐‑6 gange om ugen q En gang om ugen


66

q Sjældnere end en gang om ugen q Aldrig

Hvordan spiser dit barn oftest gulerødder? (Angiv venligst 1, 2 og 3 ud for de mest anvendte tilberedningsmetoder, hvor 1 = den hyppigste tilberedningsmetode)

q Kogt q Grillet q Stegt q Bagt q Dampet q Rå q Andet – angiv tilberedningsmetode

____________________________________________________________ Hvor godt kan dit barn lide gulerødder? (Sæt 1 kryds) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Kan over-‐‑ hovedet ikke lide

Kan hverken lide eller ikke lide

Kan ekstremt godt lide

Hvor ofte spiser dit barn pastinak?

q Dagligt q 2-‐‑6 gange om ugen q En gang om ugen q Sjældnere end en gang om ugen q Aldrig

Hvordan spiser dit barn oftest pastinak? (Angiv venligst 1, 2 og 3 ud for de mest anvendte tilberedningsmetoder, hvor 1 = den hyppigste tilberedningsmetode)

q Kogt q Grillet q Stegt q Bagt q Dampet q Rå q Andet – angiv tilberedningsmetode

____________________________________________________________ Hvor godt kan dit barn lide pastinak? (Sæt 1 kryds) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Kan over-‐‑ hovedet ikke lide

Kan hverken lide eller ikke lide

Kan ekstremt godt lide


67

Angiv med 1 kryds, hvor enig du er i følgende udsagn:

Mit barn smager konstant på ny og anderledes mad

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Meget uenig

Uenig Lidt uenig Neutral Lidt enig Enig Meget enig

Mit barn stoler ikke på ny mad

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Meget uenig


Hvis mit barn ikke ved, hvad der er i maden, vil han/hun ikke spise det

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Meget uenig


Mit barn kan godt lide mad fra andre lande

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Meget uenig


Mit barn synes, at etnisk mad ser for underligt ud til at spise

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Meget uenig


Når vi er ude og spise, vil mit barn gerne prøve ny mad

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Meget uenig



68

Mit barn er bange for spise noget, som han/hun ikke har fået før

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Meget uenig


Mit barn stiller store krav til maden, som han/hun spiser

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Meget uenig


Mit barn spiser næsten hvad som helst

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Meget uenig


Mit barn kan lide at prøve nye etniske restauranter

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Meget uenig


Forældreunderskrift for accept af deltagelse ____________________________________________________________ Tak for deltagelsen!


69

Appendix B

Protocol: preparation method of CBA, CBO, PBA og PBO

Materialer:

-‐‑ Friske gulerødder + pastinakker (står i kølerummet)

-‐‑ Snittemaskine med E/S 5mm klinge

-‐‑ Bakke/pose

-‐‑ Vægt

-‐‑ Små plastik smørbægre + låg

-‐‑ Tusch

-‐‑ Gryde + låg

-‐‑ Bageplade, bagepapir og stanniol

Kort oversigt:

Gulerødder Pastinakker

Rå 5 mm tykkelse

7 g +/-‐‑ 1 g

5 mm tykkelse

7 g +/-‐‑ 1 g

Kogt 5 mm tykkelse

Kogetid: 6 min.

7 g +/-‐‑ 1g

5 mm tykkelse

Kogetid: 6 min.

7 g +/-‐‑ 1g

Bagt 5 mm tykkelse

240°C i 12 min. med bagepapir under

og med stanniol henover

7 g +/-‐‑ 1g

5 mm tykkelse

200°C i 12 min. med bagepapir under og

stanniol henover

7 g +/-‐‑ 1g

Rå gulerødder + pastinakker:

-‐‑ Tag det antal plastik smørbægre + låg, som svarer til elevantal til rå gulerødder

-‐‑ Noter CR eller PR på låget af dem alle

-‐‑ Gulerødder afvejes

-‐‑ Pastinakker afvejes

-‐‑ Tag en skræller og skræl det hele


70

-‐‑ Skær enderne af, kun lige det nødvendige

-‐‑ Ved pastinakkerne skæres den bredeste del af, som ikke kan komme ned i maskinen

-‐‑ Sæt snittemaskinen til og sæt en pose på der, hvor stykkerne kommer ud

-‐‑ Gulerødder køres gennem snittemaskinen med klingen E/S 5mm

-‐‑ Pastinakker køres gennem snittemaskinen med klingen E/S 5mm

-‐‑ Placer et plastik smørbæger på vægten og afvej 7 g (+/-‐‑ 1) gulerod

-‐‑ Dette gentages indtil der er lavet smagsprøver til alle dem, der skal have rå gulerod

-‐‑ Placer et plastik smørbæger på vægten og afvej 7 g (+/-‐‑ 1g) pastinak

-‐‑ Dette gentages indtil der er lavet smagsprøver til alle dem, der skal have rå gulerod

-‐‑ Stil alle prøverne i en kasse på køl natten over

Bagte pastinakker:

-‐‑ Tænd ovnen på 200°C og læg bageplader med bagepapir klar ved siden af

-‐‑ Tag det antal plastik smørbægre + låg, som svarer til elevantal til bagte pastinakker

-‐‑ Noter PBA på låget

-‐‑ Pastinakkerne afvejes

-‐‑ Pastinakkerne skrælles og enderne skæres af

-‐‑ Den bredeste del, som ikke kan komme ned i maskinen skæres af


-‐‑ Brug klingen med 5 mm og kør alle pastinakkerne igennem maskinen

-‐‑ Alle stykkerne fordeles jævnt ud på bagepapiret

-‐‑ Når ovnen er 200°C, sættes pladen ind og et stopur sættes på 12 minutter

-‐‑ Når stopuret ringer, tages pladen ud og pastinakkerne afkøles

-‐‑ Placer et plastik smørbæger på vægten og afvej 7 g (+/-‐‑ 1g) bagt pastinak

-‐‑ Stil alle prøverne i en kasse på køl

Bagte gulerødder:

-‐‑ Tænd ovnen på 240°C og læg bageplader med bagepapir klar ved siden af

-‐‑ Tag det antal plastik smørbægre + låg, som svarer til elevantal til bagte gulerødder

-‐‑ Noter CBA på låget

-‐‑ Gulerødderne afvejes


71

-‐‑ Gulerødderne skrælles og enderne skæres af


-‐‑ Brug klingen med 5 mm og kør alle gulerødderne igennem maskinen

-‐‑ Alle stykkerne fordeles jævnt ud på bagepapiret med stanniol over, som skal sættes

godt fast

-‐‑ Når ovnen er 240°C, sættes pladen ind og et stopur sættes på 12 minutter

-‐‑ Når stopuret ringer, tages pladen ud og pastinakkerne afkøles

-‐‑ Placer et plastik smørbæger på vægten og afvej 7 g (+/-‐‑ 1g) bagt gulerod

-‐‑ Stil alle prøverne i en kasse på køl

Kogte gulerødder + pastinakker:

-‐‑ Hæld 3 liter vand i minimum to gryder og stil dem på komfuret, som tændes på 6

-‐‑ Tag det antal plastik smørbægre + låg, som svarer til elevantal til rå gulerødder

-‐‑ Noter CBO eller PBO på låget af dem alle

-‐‑ Gulerødder afvejes

-‐‑ Pastinakker afvejes

-‐‑ Tag en skræller og skræl det hele

-‐‑ Skær enderne af, kun lige det nødvendige

-‐‑ Ved pastinakkerne skæres den bredeste del af, som ikke kan komme ned i maskinen


-‐‑ Gulerødder køres gennem snittemaskinen med klingen E/S 5mm

-‐‑ Pastinakker køres gennem snittemaskinen med klingen E/S 5mm

-‐‑ Når vandet koger, fordeles pastinakstykkerne og gulerod stykkerne i hver deres gryde

-‐‑ Sæt låget på og sæt stopuret på 6 minutter, når vandet koger voldsomt skrues der ned

på 3

-‐‑ Når stopuret ringer, hældes vandet fra og stykkerne afkøles

-‐‑ Placer et plastik smørbæger på vægten og afvej 7 g (+/-‐‑ 1) gulerod

-‐‑ Dette gentages indtil der er lavet smagsprøver til alle dem, der skal have kogt gulerod

-‐‑ Placer et plastik smørbæger på vægten og afvej 7 g (+/-‐‑ 1g) pastinak

-‐‑ Dette gentages indtil der er lavet smagsprøver til alle dem, der skal have kogt gulerod

-‐‑ Stil alle prøverne i en kasse på køl natten over


72

Appendix C

Randomization for mere exposre of Rosengårdskolen, O.C PLAN FOR ROSENGÅRDEN 0.C Exposure 1-8

Rosengården, 0.CAri Gawad CRBertha Hjuler Petersen CRHicham Abou Lebde CRJasmin Sharilou Hossein CBOJohan Lisberg Højgaard CBOJustin Nicky Westphal CBOMaj Trieu Hansen CBOMartha Arum Bentzen CBAMathilde Fuglsang Nielsen CBAMohammad Fadi Saleh CBAMuhammed Ibrahim Ali CBANellie Christiane Binar PRTimur Efe Kursyk Edeer PRTristian Jørgensen Mikkelsen PRWilliam Hovman Elley PBOFrederikke Barslund Madsen PBOIsmo Ali Hassan Abdallah PBOMathias Borup Nedergaard PBOMona Bassam PBASebastian Borup Christensen PBASophia Nørmand Johansen PBAUmaiza Ali PBA


73

Appendix D

Hypothesis: The type of vegetable (familiar versus unfamiliar) has an effect on liking

Tested

groups

Observations Mean liking Std.

deviation

ANOVA p-‐‑

value

Conclusion

All groups

at pre-‐‑test

1478 4.1 2.4 <0.0001 H0 is rejected

Tukey HSD test – analysis of the differences between the categories:

Comparisons groups Difference Pr > Diff Significant

Carrot vs parsnip 1.0 < 0.0001 Yes

Vegetable category LS means liking Grouping

Carrot 4.6 A

Parsnip 3.6 B


74

Appendix E

Hypothesis: The type of preparation method has an effect on liking

Tested

groups


deviation

ANOVA p-‐‑

value

Conclusion

All groups

at pre-‐‑test

1478 4.1 2.4 <0.0001 H0 is

rejected



Raw vs boiled 1.6 <0.0001 Yes

Raw vs baked 1.1 <0.0001 Yes

Baked vs raw 0.5 0.002 Yes

Preparation method category LS means liking Grouping

Baked 5.0 A

Boiled 3.9 B

Raw 3.4 C


75

Appendix F

Hypothesis: The type of vegetable and the type of preparation method has an effect on

liking

Tested

groups


deviation

ANOVA p-‐‑

value

Conclusion

All groups

at pre-‐‑test

1478 4.1 2.4 <0.0001 H0 is rejected


Comparisons groups Difference Pr > Diff Significance

Carrot raw vs Parsnip boiled 3.0 < 0.0001 Yes

Carrot raw vs parsnip baked 2.1 < 0.0001 Yes

Carrot raw vs carrot boiled 2.1 < 0.0001 Yes

Carrot raw vs carrot baked 2.0 < 0.0001 Yes

Carrot raw vs parsnip raw 1.9 < 0.0001 Yes

Parsnip raw vs parsnip boiled 1.1 < 0.0001 Yes

Parsnip raw vs parsnip baked 0.3 0.779 No

Parsnip raw vs carrot boiled 0.2 0.894 No

Parsnip raw vs carrot baked 0.1 0.998 No

Carrot baked vs parsnip boiled 1.0 < 0.0001 Yes

Carrot baked vs parsnip baked 0.2 0.952 No

Carrot baked vs carrot boiled 0.1 0.988 No

Carrot boiled vs parsnip boiled 0.9 < 0.0001 Yes

Carrot boiled vs parsnip baked 0.1 1.000 No

Parsnip baked vs parsnip boiled 0.9 0.000 Yes


76

Category LS means liking Grouping

Carrot raw (CR) 5.9 A

Parsnip raw (PR) 4.1 B

Carrot baked (CBA) 4.0 B

Carrot boiled (CBO) 3.8 B

Parsnip baked (PBA) 3.8 B

Parsnip boiled (PBO) 2.9 C


77

Appendix G

Hypothesis: The strategy mere exposure has an effect on liking

Effect of mere exposure within the six exposure groups – exposed children:

Tested groups Observations Mean

liking

Std.

deviation

ANOVA

p-‐‑value

Conclusion

Carrot baked 397 4.4 2.2 0.247 H0 is accepted

Carrot boiled 422 4.9 2.0 0.059 H0 is accepted

Carrot raw 390 5.6 2.0 0.579 H0 is accepted

Parsnip baked 419 4.1 2.3 0.506 H0 is accepted

Parsnip boiled 392 3.6 2.5 0.377 H0 is accepted

Parsnip raw 422 4.7 2.4 0.931 H0 is accepted

Differences in liking between the exposure groups at the exposure numbers:

Tested

groups


deviation

ANOVA p-‐‑

value

Conclusion

Pre-‐‑test 251 4.1 2.3 < 0.001 H0 is rejected

Exposure 1 263 4.3 2.2 0.003 H0 is rejected







Exposure 8 144 5.0 2.2 0.365 H0 is accepted

Post-‐‑test 249 4.7 2.4 < 0.0001 H0 is rejected


78

LS means for exposure number:

Exposure no. CBA CBO CR PBA PBO PR Pretest 3.8 4.3 6.0 3.4 2.9 4.4 1 4.2 4.5 5.4 3.9 3.5 4.3 2 4.1 4.6 5.6 4.2 3.7 4.4 3 4.3 5.0 5.0 4.3 3.7 4.9 4 4.5 4.9 5.8 4.4 3.1 4.9 5 4.4 5.1 5.5 4.0 3.6 4.7 6 5.0 5.3 5.4 4.3 3.7 4.8 7 4.7 4.7 5.6 4.0 4.2 4.8 8 5.2 5.4 5.6 4.6 4.3 5.0 Posttest 4.4 5.6 5.9 3.7 3.8 4.8

Test between exposed and non-‐‑exposed children:

Observations Mean liking Std. deviation P-‐‑value Significant

CBA 533 4.0 2.4 0.412 No

CBO 540 3.9 2.4 <0.0001 Yes

CR 539 5.9 1.8 0.982 No

PBA 540 3.6 2.4 0.002 Yes

PBO 525 2.8 2.3 0.009 Yes

PR 535 3.9 2.3 <0.0001 Yes


79

Appendix H

Hypothesis: The type of gender has an effect on liking


liking

Std.

deviation

ANOVA

p-‐‑value

Conclusion

CBA pre-‐‑test 246 4.0 2.3 0.324 H0 is accepted

CBA post-‐‑test 245 4.0 2.5 0.248 H0 is accepted

CBO pre-‐‑test 247 3.8 2.4 0.923 H0 is accepted

CBO post-‐‑test 248 3.7 2.5 0.643 H0 is accepted

CR pre-‐‑test 248 5.9 1.7 0.761 H0 is accepted

CR post-‐‑test 249 5.9 1.9 0.696 H0 is accepted

PBA pre-‐‑test 248 3.8 2.3 0.548 H0 is accepted

PBA post-‐‑test 247 3.2 2.4 0.420 H0 is accepted

PBO pre-‐‑test 242 2.9 2.2 0.271 H0 is accepted

PBO post-‐‑test 241 2.7 2.4 0.083 H0 is accepted

PR pre-‐‑test 247 4.1 2.2 0.026 H0 is rejected

PR post-‐‑test 243 3.6 2.4 0.351 H0 is accepted

Tukey HSD test:


Boy PR pre-‐‑test vs girl PR pre-‐‑test 0.6 0.026 Yes

Category LS means liking Groups

Boy 4.3 A

Girl 3.7 B


80

Appendix I

Hypothesis: The level of neophobic status has an effect on liking

Pre-‐‑test: level of neophobic status and liking


liking

Std.

deviation

ANOVA

p-‐‑value

Conclusion

Pre-‐‑test all 1472 4.1 2.4 0.000 H0 is rejected

Tukey HSD test: Pre-‐‑test level of neophobic status and liking


Not neophobic vs Neophobic 0.6 < 0.0001 Yes

Not neophobic vs Neither neophobic or not

neophobic

0.4 0.071 No

Neither neophobic or not neophobic vs

Neophobic

0.3 0.208 No

Pre-‐‑test: neophobia, liking and familiar vs. unfamiliar vegetable


liking

Std.

deviation

ANOVA

p-‐‑value

Conclusion

Pre-‐‑test all 1472 4.1 2.4 < 0.0001 H0 is rejected


Not neophobic 4.4 A

Neither neophobic or not neophobic 4.1 A-‐‑B

Neophobic 3.8 B


81

Post-‐‑test: neophobia and liking


liking

Std.

deviation

ANOVA

p-‐‑value

Conclusion



Not neophobic vs Neophobic 1.1 < 0.0001 Yes

Not neophobic vs Neither neophobic or not

neophobic

0.5 0.008 Yes

Neither neophobic or not neophobic vs

Neophobic

0.6 0.002 Yes


Carrot + Not neophobic 5.0 A

Carrot + Neither neophobic or not neophobic 4.6 A-‐‑B

Carrot + Neophobic 4.2 B-‐‑C

Parsnip + Not neophobic 3.9 C-‐‑D

Parsnip + Neither neophobic or not

neophobic

3.5 D

Parsnip + Neophobic 3.4 D


Not neophobic 4.4 A

Neither neophobic or not neophobic 3.9 B

Neophobic 3.4 C


82

Post-‐‑test: neophobia, liking and familiar/unfamiliar vegetable


liking

Std.

deviation

ANOVA

p-‐‑value

Conclusion



Carrot + Not neophobic 5.3 A

Carrot + Neither neophobic or not neophobic 4.7 A

Carrot + Neophobic 3.9 B

Parsnip + Not neophobic 3.6 B-‐‑C

Parsnip + Neither neophobic or not

neophobic

3.2 C-‐‑D

Parsnip + Neophobic 2.8 D


83

Appendix J

Hypothesis: there is a correlation between the children’s liking of carrots and parsnips

and the children’s intake of carrots and vegetables reported by parents

Carrots Parsnips Pearson’s coefficient: parents reported liking and intake

0.606 0.520

P-‐‑values 0.000 0.000 Hypothesis: there is a correlation between the children’s liking of carrots and parsnips

reporten by parents and the children’s liking at pre-‐‑test

CBA CBO CR PBA PBO PR Pearson’s coefficient Parents liking -‐‑ liking

0.178 0.065 0.368 0.123 0.200 0.074

p-‐‑value 0.005 0.315 0.000 0.073 0.004 0.284


84

Appendix K

Figur 22: Preparation methods of carrots and parsnips reported by parents. The y-‐‑axis shows the number of children

Figur 23: The intake of carrots and parsnips reported by parents. The y-‐‑axis shows the number of children

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Boiled Grilled Fried Baked Steamed Raw Andet

Num

ber of children

Preparation methods of carrots and parsnips reported by parents

Carrot Parsnip

020406080100120140160

Daily 2-‐‑6 times per week

1 time per week < 1 time per week

Never

Num

ber of children

Intake of carrots and parsnips reported by parents

Carrot Parsnip

theeffectofpreparationmethod!on …...kamilla!hall!kragelund!! ! studienummer201503524!!! 3!...

Documents