Food Avoidances
ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION. Foods vary
along a hedonic dimension, that is, in their ability to
evoke pleasure. A foods hedonic value can differ signif-
icantly between individuals and among cultures. In
developed countries at least, pleasure is probably the
strongest determinant of diet. For most of us, most of
the time, a global emotional response to the taste of a
food determines whether it is consumed. Underlying this
seemingly simple decision is a remarkable range of emo-
tionsfrom blissful appreciation of haute cuisine to a
profound rejection elicited by feelings of disgust. As with
many other complex human behaviors, the development
of food likes and dislikes reflects the operation of mul-
tiple influencesgenetic inheritance, maternal diet,
child raising practices, learning, cognition, and culture.
In fact, the development of food preferences may be an
ideal model of the interplay of these influences during
our life span.
Foods may be selected or rejected for a variety of
reasons, including their anticipated effects on health,
their perceived ethical or environmental appropriateness,
or practical considerations as price, availability, and con-
venience. However, it is our responses to the sensory
properties of a foodits odor, taste, flavor, and texture
that provide the underlying basis of food acceptance. This
article will focus on some of the influences that shape he-
donic responses to foods, their flavors, and other sensory
qualities.
Tastes
Despite evidence of innate hedonic responses to basic
tastes, the vast majority of specific food likes and dislikes
are not predeterminedno one is born liking blue
cheese, for example. This is not to suggest that basic sen-
sory qualities are unimportant. On the contrary, relatively
fixed hedonic responses to sweet, salty, bitter, and umami
(glutamate taste) tastes, and almost certainly fat, are pre-
sent at or shortly after birth, and continue to exert an in-
fluence on food preferences. The strong affinity that
children show for very sweet foods, and the persistence
of the early development of liking for the taste of salt and
salty foods throughout life appear to be universal. A ma-
jority in many Western societies also choose a diet that
is high in fat.
However, innate responses do not account for the
broad range of food likes and dislikes that develop be-
yond infancy. For instance, humans and many other
mammals can detect bitterness at low levels and find it
unpalatable because it is a potential sign of toxicity. Yet,
while coffee and beer are typically rejected on first tast-
ing, they are ultimately the strongest contenders for be-
ing the global beverages. The pungency of spicy foods is
also initially rejected. Worldwide, though, chili is second
only to salt as a food spice. Thus, although innate influ-
ences are clearly important in food selection, these are
modified by our experience with foods (although both
physiological makeup and culture will partly determine
the extent to which experience is allowed to operate).
What is more important than our innate preferences is
the fact that we are predisposed to learn to like (and some-
times, dislike) foods. Some other preferences do appear
to be common across cultures whose diets are very dif-
ferent. However, examples such as the widespread liking
for vanilla and chocolate flavor are likely to reflect some
degree of common experience.
Texture
Texture is a crucial criterion for sensory acceptance and
rejection. Certain textures do seem to be universally
liked, crispness, for exampleperhaps through its asso-
ciation with freshness. Of course, to some extent, we will
always prefer textures that are compatible with our den-
tition, and thus we would not expect infants to like hard
foods. Foods that are difficult to manipulate in the
mouthsuch as soggy foodsare commonly disliked, as
are foods that require excessive saliva and effort to swal-
low, such as dry, tough meat. While food texture is of-
ten cited as a reason for rejecting food, for example raw
oysters, it is likely that such preferences are also a func-
tion of our prior expectations for specific foods.
Color
Food color is also undoubtedly a strong influence on ac-
ceptability, but again this is likely to reflect prior expec-
tations. Whether we prefer white (U.S.) or yellow (U.K.)
butter depends on what we have eaten in the past. Some
colors have been thought to be inappropriate for food.
The color blue, for instance, has been suggested as a can-
didate for a universally inappropriate food colorafter
1
A
all, very few foods are naturally blue. But recent market-
ing of brightly and inappropriately colored foods for
children tends to undermine this notion, since the chil-
dren appear receptive to unusual colors. Removing color
from common foods does reliably reduce liking for those
foods, perhaps by undermining our ability to identify
their flavor, thus making them seem less familiar.
Fear of the New
The fact that humans are omnivores creates a paradox.
On the one hand, we have access to a large range of po-
tential nutrients; conversely (in nature at least), we are
much more likely to be exposed to toxic substances. In
the first two to three years of our lives, we exist in a highly
protected environment, first in the context of breast or
bottle feeding, and then through parental food selection
and supervision. It is therefore adaptive for young infants
to accept a wide variety of foods as the risk of exposure
to potentially toxic nonfoods is low.
In later infancy, greater independence is typical, both
in terms of the wider variety of other people encountered
and also of the potential to come into contact with edi-
ble substances, which may be unsuitable for health or
other reasons, outside direct parental influence. At this
point, food neophobia often becomes apparent. Reluc-
tance to consume novel foods at this age is most obvi-
ously reflected in statements of I dont like it to foods
that have never been tried. The rejection of unfamiliar
foods can now be seen as adaptive, given the wider risk
of ingestion of potentially toxic substances. Food neo-
phobia is found not just in humans, but also in a variety
of non-human species, including rats, dogs, birds, and
fish. Hence, it may be a universal safeguard against po-
tential toxics.
The trait of food neophobia has been investigated in
different age groups, as has the nature of the fear and
how it can be modified. Even in adults, there often re-
main strong vestiges of childhood neophobia. While
many welcome the chance to sample exotic foods or novel
flavors, others remain unable to even consider consump-
tion of foods beyond their usual repertoire.
Such reluctance is especially strong for foods of an-
imal origin (unfamiliar meats, dairy products, or eggs),
the same foods that elicit reactions of disgust, also
thought to be a protective mechanism. Why this food-
related personality trait varies so much among adults is
unclear, but it might reflect the breadth of experience
with different foods in childhood.
Interestingly, in both children and adults, food neo-
phobia appears to be mediated less by any conscious
awareness of the potential for danger, than by the much
more immediate fear that foods will taste unpleasant.
Consistent with this, willingness to try a novel food can
be increased by strategies that reduce this anxiety, in-
cluding providing information about the foods flavor or
indicating that others have enjoyed it since. Highly neo-
phobic individuals are more likely to choose an unfamil-
iar food after they have seen others select it. Specific nu-
tritional information (such as the fact that a food is low
in fat) also encourages selection of novel foods, but only
for those for whom nutrition is important. In each case,
the net effect is to assure the taster that the food is ac-
ceptable in terms of flavor and perhaps safety. Neopho-
bia is a major issue for many parents concerned about the
narrow range of foods that their children are willing to
consume. A common strategy is to use one food as a re-
ward for eating another foodone that the adult wants
the child to eat. Unfortunately, these attempts frequently
fail because the relative value of the foods is quite ap-
parent. Rewarding the consumption of spinach by giving
ice cream presents a message simple enough for any
young child: ice cream is a good food (at least in terms
of taste), otherwise why use it as a reward; spinach is bad,
else why do I need to be rewarded for eating it? The un-
fortunate, if predictable, consequences of such strategies
are increased liking for the reward and a decrease in lik-
ing for the target food.
Learning to Like
What does reduce neophobia and encourage consump-
tion? In both children and adults, repeated exposure has
been found to lead to increased acceptability of novel
foods, with greater exposure producing greater liking.
For example, three- and four-year-old children have been
found to accept initially rejected cheese and fruits fol-
lowing ten exposures. It is possible that individuals who
receive repeated exposure to a wide variety of foods as
infants and children are least likely to be highly neopho-
bic as adults, although this has yet to be established. That
is, the more we experience different foods, the more we
are willing to experience different foods.
Exposure appears to be the one mechanism that is
necessary for liking to increase. With novel foods or fla-
vors, repeated consumption might lead to increased lik-
ing via a reduction in neophobiaeffectively a relief from
the anxiety associated with novelty. It certainly produces
an increase in familiarity, an important aspect of chil-
drens likes and dislikes, and it has been recognized for
some time that sensations of recognition are in them-
selves positive. However, changes in liking for food in-
gredients or ingredient levels in already familiar foods
strongly suggest that exposure per se produces liking, and
that a food or flavor does not need to be completely novel.
There are many commonplace examples of this, includ-
ing the gradual increase in liking that accompanies chang-
ing from regular to low-fat milk or low-salt soup, or
reducing sugar in tea or coffee.
Although it is a necessary precondition, by itself, ex-
posure is insufficient to explain why we end up liking
some foods more than others. There appears to be a va-
riety of other processes that operate during repeated food
experiences, producing preferences for the diverse range
of food odors and flavors that we encounter. Whether
sniffed as aromas, or as characteristic flavor qualities in
ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION
2 E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F F O O D A N D C U L T U R E
the mouth, food odors reliably inform us whether we have
previously experienced a food. Odors are thus most likely
to be the source of neophobic responses. However, there
is nothing intrinsic to the odor or flavor of any food that
means we will develop a strong like or dislike for it. Dur-
ing our early infancy (up to about three years old), we
appear to be neutral to most if not all odors, except for
those that also produce nasal irritation, such as ammo-
nia. In contrast to those for tastes, odor preferences are
almost certainly all learned, and rely upon our ability to
form associations with other liked qualities. Pairing a
novel flavor with a sweet taste, for example, reliably in-
creases subsequent liking for that flavor, even when the
sweetness is not present. This process, known as classi-
cal conditioning or associative learning, was first de-
scribed scientifically by Ivan Pavlov. He famously
demonstrated that the sound of a bell, previously associ-
ated with the presentation of food, would elicit gastric
secretions in his dogs. While the principles of Pavlovian
conditioning were developed using animal (especially rat)
models, they appear equally applicable to explaining as-
pects of human food likes and dislikes.
The universal high palatability of sweetness and fat
is a reflection of the ability of substances associated with
these qualities to provide energy to the body. Our bod-
ies find the provision of energy inherently rewarding.
Consequently, repeatedly pairing flavors with ingested
carbohydrates or fats produces increases in liking for as-
sociated flavors. Other postingestional consequences
have also been described, including enhanced liking for
flavors paired with the alerting effects of caffeinea plau-
sible mechanism, together with the energy provided by
the sugar and milk fat sometimes added, for the enor-
mous popularity of coffee.
The effects of conditioning by positive association
and the absorption of energy-rich foods are broad enough
mechanisms to account for very many food likes. One
implication of this process and the bodys response to en-
ergy is that we end up showing a liking for foods that are
high in sugar and fat. Clearly, this has implications for
health. We may know that high-fat foods present us with
a risk in the long term, but what drives our behavior pri-
marily is the fact that we like the fatit gives the food a
pleasant mouthfeel, it carries flavor well, and its provides
the body with energy. The bodys response is to promote
liking for flavor associated with the fat. Eventually, it is
not just the fat or sugar content that we find palatable,
but the specific flavor of the food as well.
Food dislikes may also result from Pavlovian condi-
tioning. Associating a characteristic food flavor with nau-
sea, as sometimes occurs with food poisoning or a
coincidental illness, will promote a rapid, often irre-
versible, taste aversion that actually seems to make the
flavor become unpleasant. The development of aversions
can be seen as highly adaptiveit makes sense to avoid
foods previously associated with gastric illness. Conse-
quently, the conditioned association tends to be very
strong. In humans, taste aversions are typically both long
lasting and robust enough to persist even if it is known
that the food was not the source of the illness. As with
neophobic responses, meat seems to be a common target
when aversions do occur. An unfortunate consequence of
the nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy is the
development of taste aversions. Close to three-quarters
of children aged two to fifteen years old undergoing treat-
ment are reported to have at least one aversion. Taste
aversions are not common enough to account for the ma-
jority of our food dislikes, since they appear to occur in
only about 30 percent of people. However, they are a
powerful indicator of the role that consequences of food
ingestion can play in shaping our responses to a foods
sensory qualities.
Odors are not the only sensory qualities in foods for
which preferences are shaped by learning. Our most
primitive sense is the detection of painunsurprisingly,
ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION
E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F F O O D A N D C U L T U R E 3
This sequence of pictures shows the reactions of babies from
four to ten hours old prior to experiencing food of any sort.
The left column shows their natural response to the sweetness
of sucrose placed on the tongue, while the right column shows
their response to the bitterness of quinine. Their facial expres-
sions resemble those of adults tested for the same responses.
PHOTO COURTESY OF DR. JACOB STEINER.
ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION
4 E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F F O O D A N D C U L T U R E
CRAVINGS FOR FOOD
At some time, most of us have experienced a craving for
a specific foodsomething that we must have now, and
which we will go out of our way to obtain. It is almost
as if the body is insisting that we must have that food.
There is much anecdotal information about craving and
physiological needs, but less hard evidence for such spe-
cific appetites. It is clear that we get hungry and thirsty,
but does the body really crave particular nutrients?
The one incontrovertible specific hunger that hu-
mans possess is for sodium chloride, common salt. Salt
is metabolically essential and most of the time this need
is both met and exceeded through diet. Clinical studies
have demonstrated that in cases where the body is de-
pleted of salt, humans develop strong appetites for the
taste of salt, and its normal degree of palatability is in-
creased. The same is true in experiments in which vol-
unteers are fed low-salt dietssalty foods increase in
palatability. Hence, it appears that a change in the he-
donic value of the taste of salt is the mediator for in-
creased intake when depleted.
Beyond salt appetite, however, there is little strong
evidence that other specific appetites exist. There are re-
ports suggesting an association between pica (the con-
sumption of earth) and mineral (especially iron)
deficiency. This practice appears to be most prevalent
among pregnant women in poor rural communities. Preg-
nancy is well known to be associated with craving for
foods, but it is not clear whether such normal cravings
are related to metabolic needs.
The single most commonly craved food in Western
societies is chocolate. Although chocolate contains
phamacologically active compounds, there is no evi-
dence these compounds are what is craved. Instead, the
craving for chocolate is related to craving sweet foods
generally and to chocolates palatability, based on an op-
timal combination of sugar and fat. Chocolate craving is
more common among women, and hormonal influences
have been suggested as being important. The craving
shows a peak around the time of menstruation and is also
more common during pregnancy. While chocolate and
sweet food cravings do occur among males, cravings for
savory foods are more common.
A less extreme version of craving is the phenome-
non of moreishness. Again, wanting just one more
bite appears to reflect the high palatability of certain
foods, rather than a desire for any specific nutrient. Foods
described as moreish also tend to be consumed in small
amounts. Often their consumption is subject to a volun-
tary restraint determined by social mores; you may want
another slice of cake, another piece of chocolate, or an-
other potato chip, but will often hold back to avoid seem-
ing intemperate. Because of the typically small portion
sizes associated with moreish food, this may be an ex-
ample of the appetizer effect, which occurs when the ini-
tial consumption of palatable foods increases appetite for
further eating.
Explanations for craving, moreishness, and appetizer
effects have recently focused on the brains biochemistry,
in particular those functions mediated by opioid (mor-
phinelike) peptides. Interfering with the functioning of
this biochemical system using opioid blocking drugs
leads to reduced food consumption overall and also to
attenuation of appetizer effects, apparently because the
foods become less palatable. Conversely, it is possible
that increased opioid levels may induce cravings by mak-
ing foods more palatable. Such changes may occur in a
variety of circumstancesdieting, stress, exercise, alco-
hol consumptionall of which are known to influence
the brains opioid systems.
Cravings thus tell us little about the bodys nutri-
tional needs, beyond the fact that highly palatable foods
tend to be high in energy. Other evidence also points to
strategies to maximize energy intake. At least in Western
countries, given ample availability, we tend to consume
a diet that contains 35 to 40 percent fat, well in excess
of what we need to survive. Moreover, from early in-
fancy onwards, we will attempt to compensate for re-
ductions in calories at one meal with an increase at the
next.
In addition to energy intake, we seem predisposed,
as omnivores, to seek variety in our diet. As noted in the
section on sensory-specific satiety, this may be one way
of optimizing survival through ensuring adequate nutri-
ent intake. Classic studies on dietary self-selection were
carried out by Clara Davis in the 1920s and 1930s. She
allowed recently weaned infants access to a varied se-
lection of foods and found that they first tasted widely
and then developed preferences for a selection of these
foods. This research has been often misinterpreted to sug-
gest that the body has an innate wisdom, in that the foods
the infants selected represented a balanced nutrient in-
take. This was inevitable, however, given the range of
foods available.
This is not to say that mechanisms responsive to our
needs are not in operation. On the contrary, the palata-
bility of energy and sodium sources, the avoidance of
toxins through dislike of bitterness, the rapid formation
of aversions to foods associated with gastric illness, and
the maintenance of nutrient variety via sensory-specific
satiety, are all innate predispositions that modulate the
hedonic value of sensory properties of foods to help en-
sure survival.
since pain avoidance is the simplest key to survival. How
then to explain the fact that at least a quarter of the
worlds population each day consume (and presumably
enjoy) a meal containing an extremely potent irritant,
capsaicin, which is present in chilies? Whatever the
source of our increasing preference for pungency in
foods, it must be a potent mechanism. Apart from the
warning signals for pain, our bodies possess a built-in re-
sponse to high levels of irritation. This defensive reflex,
as it is known, consists of increased blood flow to the
head, profuse sweating, tearing, and nasal discharge
physiological changes that are thought to have evolved
as a means of rapidly eliminating toxins. Although fre-
quent consumers of spicy foods experience somewhat less
intense physiological responses and burn than infrequent
users, there is no doubt that the burning sensations are
actually part of the reason these foods are consumed, not
something to be tolerated for other reasons.
Both regular exposure, commencing during breast-
feeding, and postingestional energy conditioning are
likely to play a part in the development of liking for hot
foods, particularly in countries whose staple diet in-
cludes high levels of spiciness. To explain the recent
increase in liking for hot foods in Western countries,
though, a number of other interesting mechanisms have
also been proposed. These include the hypothesis that
the painful experience may activate the brains natural
opioid (morphinelike) biochemical systems, dampening
pain and producing a chili eaters high. Alternatively,
it has been suggested that we derive pleasure from the
thrill of the benign but highly stimulating experience
of consuming hot foods.
Where Do Differences in Food Likes Come From?
If exposure, together with resultant learning processes,
can substantially explain food preference development,
what accounts for the differences in which foods we come
to like? Exposure to flavors is now known to begin even
prior to birth. Amniotic fluid, which comes into contact
with the taste and odor receptors in the mouth and nose
of the fetus, carries both taste and odor qualities. There
is good evidence that the maternal diet during pregnancy
can influence food preferences of the child following
birth. Thus, it has been shown that infants whose moth-
ers consumed carrot juice during pregnancy showed a
greater liking for carrot-flavored cereal at six months of
age than did a control group of children whose mothers
consumed only water. Following birth, a wide range of
flavors derived from the maternal diet is carried in breast
milk, and this also influences an infants later food pref-
erences, including greater acceptance of novel flavors. In
other words, the variety of a mothers diet can promote
a varied set of food preferences in the infant. As a result,
breast-fed babies are more likely to develop preferences
following exposure to novel foods as infants. Whether this
reflects early exposure to particular flavors, or a general
effect of previous maternal dietary variety, is uncertain.
Social Influences
From childhood on, social interactions, whether within
the family or with other groups, provide the context
within which the majority of food experiences occur, and
hence by which learning of food likes is facilitated. The
pleasure associated with such interactionsthe convivi-
ality of a meal shared with friends, for examplemay rep-
resent just as positive a conditioning stimulus for a new
food flavor as sweetness. Thus, it may be that our esti-
mation of the food at a restaurant has as much to do with
the social environment as it does with the chefs skills. In
children, pairing foods with the presence of friends, a
liked celebrity, or attention by adults all increase liking
for those foods, no doubt reflecting the positive hedonic
value of each of these groups to the child.
This process is strongly evident in the relative im-
pact of different social interactions on the food prefer-
ences of children. Surprisingly, despite the enormous
opportunities in a family for exposing children to the
foods eaten by the parents, parental preferences are poor
predictors of child food preferences; in fact, they are no
better predictors than the preferences of other adults.
This suggests that the extent to which these sets of pref-
erences are related has more to do with the wider cul-
ture than with any specific food habits within the family.
A childs food likes and dislikes are much more likely to
be associated with those of peers, especially specific
friends, than those of its parents. Peers may also be as ef-
fective as families at helping to overcome neophobia,
since the food choices of both friends or well-known
adults strongly influence a childs food choices. The ul-
timate impact of social facilitation of food choice is that
the liking eventually becomes internalized. That is, foods
chosen because others do so become liked for their own
sensory properties.
The Cultural Context
Dietary differences between cultures are almost always
more pronounced than individual differences within a
culture. The relatively limited amount of research that
has been conducted on cross-cultural perceptions of sen-
sory qualities finds fewer differences than are needed to
explain the often markedly different preferences for
foods. More plausibly, it is likely that differences in pref-
erences reflect experiences with different foods. In addi-
tion to facilitating liking through exposure and the action
of social influences, cultures act to define what substances
are considered foods.
Foods that are unfamiliar to a culture may initially
be seen as entirely unsuitable for consumption, while cer-
tain flavors may be regarded as inappropriate for specific
foods. For example, bean paste is often used as a sweet
filling in Japanese cakes, whereas in many Western coun-
tries, beans are expected to inhabit savory, not sweet,
products. Again, porridge is either sweet or savory, de-
pending on your heritage. In other cases, because of dif-
ferent histories of exposure, a preferred flavor in one
ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION
E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F F O O D A N D C U L T U R E 5
culture may be perceived as unpleasant in another. The
odor and flavor of lamb and mutton are highly liked in
the West but rejected in the many parts of Asia that do
not have the history of consuming sheep meat. Foods
may of course be the subject of religious or cultural
taboos, or even not be defined as food at all. In Western
countries, we are unlikely to ever develop a taste for dog
meat or snake blood.
The notion of culturally specific flavor principles has
been proposed as a way of categorizing cultural differ-
ences in cuisines. Flavor principles are unique combina-
tions of specific ingredients used in a variety of foods
within a culture. This combination provides a character-
istic flavor that foods within the culture share, and iden-
tifies them as originating from that culture. For example,
a characteristic combination of ingredients in Japanese
cooking is soy sauce, mirin (sweet rice wine) and dashi (a
stock made from flakes of the bonito fish, which is high
in umami taste). While Korea is geographically close to
Japan, its flavor principle could not be less similar, with
the intense flavors of garlic, chili, sesame, and soy dom-
inating many dishes. Flavor principles not only define the
national cuisine, they also perform a social role by act-
ing as an expression of the individuality of the culture.
Flavor principles may help to provide a solution to
the omnivores paradox and the consequent neophobic
response that novelty can elicit, thus limiting the foods
available for consumption within a culture. A familiar fla-
vor can provide a safe context for new foods, thus maxi-
mizing the breadth of the diet. On the individual level,
recent findings suggest that a familiar sauce could in-
crease the willingness of children to consume a novel
food. A characteristic combination of flavorings may also
provide variety and interest in diets dominated by bland
staples such as corn or rice. Although a flavor principle
might contain only a small set of characteristic season-
ings, these can be combined in different ways. Moreover,
what may appear to be a single ingredient or spice to an
outsider may in fact have many subtle variations. Differ-
ent chili varieties, for instance, vary considerably in the
flavor and degree of heat that they impart to foods.
Increasingly, the food industry operates in a global
setting. This is likely to mean that those foods that are
purchased in your local supermarket are, or soon will be,
also available on the other side of the world, perhaps
within a culture whose cuisine is vastly different from
your own. Whether this means that national flavor prin-
ciples will ultimately be diluted or replaced is uncertain.
Some evidence suggests they will not. Japanese urban
populations have, for many years, enjoyed wide access to
foods from other parts of the world, particularly Europe
and the United States. Yet, while rice consumption has
fallen and red meat and dairy food consumption has in-
creased in recent years, there is little evidence that more
traditional foods are disappearing. Moreover, Western
food companies wishing to export to those cultures whose
cuisines are substantially different are learning that in-
corporating aspects of the flavor principles of those cul-
tures is essential for producing acceptable foods.
Food Choice: The Broader Context
Although a foods sensory properties may substantially
determine what we like, they are only part of why we
choose a particular food on a particular occasion. The
determinants of our diet include factors that are both in-
ternal and external to the individual. Food choices are in-
fluenced by appetite, which in turn reflects when and
what we last ate, and our overall state of physical and psy-
chological health. In some extreme cases, these internal
influences can render eating itself a pathological process,
as in disorders such as anorexia and bulimia nervosa. Even
in nonpathological circumstances, though, choosing a
high-fat or -carbohydrate food may have more to do with
our mood than anything else.
Liking is also heavily dependent on context. At its
simplest level, cultural practices will determine whether
or not we eat cooked meat or toast for breakfast. The ex-
tent to which either of these foods is acceptable will de-
pend considerably on time of day. The same food can also
vary in acceptability depending on where we experience
it. Due to the influence of prior expectations, the same
meal served in a restaurant is likely to be judged as more
acceptable than if it is served in a student cafeteria.
Clearly, also, the reason why we first choose a food
must be based on factors other than direct experience of,
and therefore liking for, the sensory properties of the
food. Food manufacturers and marketers rely on adver-
tising and labeling to create a positive image for prod-
ucts, and attempt to create high (but not unrealistic)
expectations for the products sensory properties. If the
food meets those expectations following purchase, then
the consumer is likely to try the product again. Repeat
consumption and the consequent associative and post-
ingestive processes will then act to promote increased lik-
ing for the product.
See also Anorexia, Bulimia; Appetite; Aversion to Food;
Disgust; Sensation and the Senses; Taboos.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bernstein, Ilene L. Development of Taste Preferences. In The
Hedonics of Taste, edited by Robert C. Bolles, pp. 143157.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1991.
Birch, Leann L., and D. W. Marlin. I Dont Like It; I Never
Tried It: Effects of Exposure on Two-Year-Old Childrens
Food Preferences. Appetite 3 (1982): 353
