Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Preference segments among declared craft beer drinkers: Perceptual, T

attitudinal and behavioral responses underlying craft-style vs. traditional-
style flavor preferences
⁎
Sara R. Jaegera, , Thierry Worchb, Tracey Phelpsa, David Jina, Armand V. Cardelloc
a
The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Mt Albert Research Centre, Private Bag 92169, Victoria Street West, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
b
Qi Statistics Ltd., United Kingdom
c
A.V. Cardello Consulting and Editing Services, Framingham, MA, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Craft beer is a product category that continues to expand, and craft beer drinkers are generally differentiated
Consumer research from traditional (or mainstream) beer drinkers in terms of their preference for innovative beers with novel and
Product research complex flavor profiles, and greater involvement in beer and product-focused behaviors and activities. The
Craft beer present research explores the existence of flavor-driven segments within the overall craft beer segment, where
Segment profiling
some declared craft beer drinkers exhibit the characteristic craft beer preference (stronger and more complex
flavors), while others exhibit a preference for less complex and more traditional flavors. Research conducted
with craft-style and traditional-style beers (n = 6) confirmed such preference segments in a group of male New
Zealanders (n = 120). The preference segments perceived the sensory and holistic/conceptual characteristics of
the beers similarly. However, they differed in specific attitudes and behaviors toward craft beers that were
associated with the extent of their use and exposure to craft beers. The presence of the two preference segments
was interpreted as being the result of a normal transition of declared craft beer drinker preferences away from
the lighter flavors of the traditional style beers to which they had been accustomed and toward the more novel
and robust flavors of craft beers. This shift in flavor preferences is tentatively attributed to the same exposure
effects (mere and evaluative) that are responsible for flavor preference development in other foods and bev-
erages. The implications for craft and traditional brewers are discussed and suggestions for future research
presented.

1. Introduction
1.1. The rise of craft beer
Craft beer has been defined as beer brewed in “any small, in-
dependently owned brewery that adheres to traditional brewing prac-
tices and ingredients” (Acitelli & Magee, 2017). According to Elzinga,
Tremblay, and Tremblay (2015), this definition includes the two most
important characteristics of craft beer: 1) the traditional nature of the
beer production method, and 2) the small size of the production facility
in which it is brewed. The former characteristic has been described by
beer enthusiasts as beer “that is carefully produced” or produced by “a
more complicated process,” while the latter characteristic has been
described as beer “produced on a small scale” or one “that has a limited
production” (Gómez-Corona, Escalona-Buendía, García, Chollet, &
Valentin, 2016). In addition to these two critical characterizing
elements of craft beer, a number of other characteristics have been cited
in the literature. In a recent study of beer drinkers in Italy, the following
characteristics of craft beer were cited: brewed on a small scale, with
premium local and unconventional ingredients, unpasteurized, un-
filtered, additive-free, natural and genuine, using heirloom grains,
spontaneously and naturally fermented, sold in specific outlets only, of
a high price and low availability, and brewed for a niche market
(Donadini & Porretta, 2017). Taking these characteristics together, craft
beers stand in stark contrast to mainstream beers produced by large,
international brewers that are brewed in large batches, using standard
ingredients, and being subjected to high levels of quality control, fil-
tering, processing and, often, containing additives (Elzinga et al.,
2015).
The origin of the craft beer industry is commonly traced to the
1960′s, when the Anchor Steam Beer Company (U.S.A.) was purchased
by Fritz Maytag (Elzinga et al., 2015). Among the innovations of this

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sara.jaeger@plantandfood.co.nz (S.R. Jaeger).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103884
Received 21 November 2019; Received in revised form 10 January 2020; Accepted 10 January 2020
Available online 11 January 2020
0950-3293/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.R. Jaeger, et al.
small brewery was the formulation of the first American India Pale Ale
(IPA) and the re-introduction of non-traditional beer styles like porters,
wheat beers and spiced holiday beers (Elzinga et al., 2015). All of these
innovations stood in contrast to the beers being produced by the large,
commercial breweries at the time, which held a near monopoly on the
beer market and brewed, almost exclusively, light-flavored lagers, often
with non-traditional ingredients (e.g., corn or rice). Although the
growth of the craft beer market in the U.S. was slow at first, it has
grown steadily to where it now consists of over 4500 breweries and has
gained 13% of the U.S. market in 2018, in spite of the fact that the
overall beer market was down 1% in 2018 (Brewers Association,
2019a).
During this same time, the large-scale commercial brewing industry
has been consolidating, so that in 2012 just 4 companies were re-
sponsible for one-half of all the beer produced globally (Howard, 2014).
Although Europe was somewhat slower to develop a craft beer industry,
in Britain, the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) was formed in 1971
with the goal of “promoting beer consumption by a knowledgeable
informed consumer who is passionate about beer and demands quality,
choice and variety over easily consumed and mass-produced alter-
natives” (Thurnell-Read, 2016). In Italy, the growth came somewhat
more slowly, but craft beer has now begun to grow rapidly, with the
number of microbreweries doubling between 2012 and 2017
(Microbirrifici.org, 2019). Similar expansions of the craft beer industry
have been seen in other countries, such as Mexico, where craft beers
grew in popularity by 30% from 2011 to 2016 (Euromonitor
International, 2016), and in New Zealand, where the craft beer market
has grown exponentially to now include over 200 breweries, including
a 42% increase in sales in 2015 (Newshub, 2018) and now accounts for
over 25% of beer sales (Neilsen Scantrack, 2018). Similar growth has
been seen throughout the Asian market with China showing a 50%
growth in craft beer production volume from 2014 to 2015, with
growth rates predicted to increase through 2020 (Statista, 2019).
Due to: 1) the sheer number of microbreweries across the globe (in
some locations there can be as many as 4–5 breweries in a small city),
2) the fact that the small batches brewed in these facilities allow for
rapid changeover in the production of different styles and flavors of
beers, and 3) the inherent desire of craft brewers to provide innovative
products, there is an extremely wide array of craft beers available on
the market. These include a wide range of styles of craft beer (e.g.,
lagers, ales, IPAs, porters, stouts, wheat and sour beers), flavor qualities
(e.g., fruity, chocolate, coffee, herbal), flavor intensities (many have
very high hop or malt content or strong barrel-aged flavors), and often,
much higher alcohol content than are found with commercially avail-
able beers. This hyper-differentiation of craft beers (Clemons, Gao, &
Hitt, 2006) has been cited as a major reason for the success of the craft
beer market (Aquilani, Laureti, Poponi, & Secondi, 2015). From a
product and sensory perspective, this craft beer renaissance (Donadini
& Porretta, 2017) has led to a “taste revolution” in the beer industry
(Gómez-Corona, Escalona-Buendía, Chollet, & Valentin, 2017; Kleban &
Nickerson, 2012), resulting in consumers who are motivated by the
discovery of new flavors and the search for quality and product
craftsmanship (Aquilani et al., 2015). In one recent survey, 40% of beer
drinkers considered flavor to be a characterizing element of craft beers
(Donadini & Porretta, 2017). These drinkers considered the flavor of
craft beers to be “rich, intense and composite” and that the use of un-
conventional ingredients produced “unusual sensory notes” in these
beers. In concert with the growth of craft beers and this shift in con-
sumer flavor preferences for beer, a new segment of beer drinkers has
evolved. This group, known as “craft beer drinkers,” now constitutes
the largest growing segment in the beer industry.
1.2. Characteristics of craft beer drinkers
Craft beer drinkers can be differentiated from traditional (or
mainstream) beer drinkers on the basis of several characteristics.
2
Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884
Among these are their demographic and psychographic profiles, their
preferences for certain styles and flavors of beer, and the product-re-
lated behaviors that they often exhibit toward beers.
1.2.1. Demographics and psychographics
From a demographic perspective, craft beer drinkers have been
found to be mostly male (Gómez-Corona et al., 2016; Jaeger et al.,
2017; Malone & Lusk, 2018; Murray & O'Neill, 2012), a statistic that is
consistent with the fact that men generally prefer stronger tasting beers
than women (Guinard et al., 2000). Craft beer drinkers are also younger
than their mainstream beer-drinking counterparts (i.e., millennials, but
include those up to their 30 s or 40 s) (Aquilani et al., 2015; Gómez-
Corona et al., 2016; Malone & Lusk, 2018; Murray & O'Neill, 2012). In
addition, they are more highly educated (Malone & Lusk, 2018; Murray
& O'Neill, 2012) and have a generally higher income level (Gómez-
Corona et al., 2016; Malone & Lusk, 2018; Murray & O'Neill, 2012) than
traditional or mainstream beer drinkers. From a psychological per-
spective, Gómez-Corona, Chollet, Escalona-Buendía, and Valentin
(2017) showed that individuals drinking craft beers rely more on cog-
nitive processes when drinking traditional or mainstream beers. In
particular, they found that craft beer drinking was more often char-
acterized by cognitively-oriented statements, i.e., in terms of thinking,
memorializing or mentally representing the beers, than by statements
related to the sensory or affective aspects of beer drinking. Craft beer
drinkers also have been characterized as having a strong self-identity
(Rivaroli, Hingley, & Spadoni, 2018) being novelty-seekers (Malone &
Lusk, 2018) and, potentially, status-seekers (Holt, 1995). Lastly, craft
beer drinkers have been characterized as having a desire for distinction,
i.e., not consuming what everyone else does (Gómez-Corona, Escalona-
Buendía et al., 2017), and a desire for unique consumer products
(Rivaroli et al., 2018). As it relates to these latter psychological pro-
pensities, it has been noted that younger craft beer drinkers’ intention
to drink craft beers is often subject to the influence of peer pressure
(Santisi, Morando, & Sciacca, 2018).
1.2.2. Craft beer drinkers’ preferences
From the point of view of both beer experts and trained panel
profiling of craft beers, it can be concluded that these beers are typically
characterized by high flavor complexity (Medoro et al., 2016). Simi-
larly, the exponential growth in the number, type and flavors of craft
beers on the market, suggests that craft beer drinkers enjoy a wide
variety of beer styles and flavors. These often include highly innovative
beers, some of which have high levels of hoppiness, strong flavor pro-
files and/or high alcohol content. Gómez-Corona et al. (2016), Gómez-
Corona, Escalona-Buendía et al. (2017) found that the uniqueness of the
flavors of craft-style beers is an important driver of their consumption
by this group of consumers. In fact, many craft beer drinkers have come
to eschew traditional and mainstream beers with low flavor impact.
Craft beer drinkers have also been shown to place a high degree of
importance on the quality of the beer (Aquilani et al., 2015) and on its
authenticity (Gómez-Corona et al., 2016). Individuals who enjoy craft
beers have a higher general liking for beer (Jaeger et al., 2017; Malone
& Lusk, 2018), drink it more often (Aquilani et al., 2015; Gómez-Corona
et al., 2016), drink draft beer more than bottled beer, and are more
likely to drink alone, than are traditional or mainstream beer drinkers
(Aquilani et al., 2015). In addition, they experience more positive
emotions from craft style beers (Jaeger et al., 2017) and attribute
greater appropriateness of their use in a variety of drinking situations,
compared to simple lager-style beers (Jaeger et al., 2017). While
Malone and Lusk (2018) found the liking and familiarity with beers to
be important variables that differentiate traditional and mainstream
beer drinkers from those who prefer craft style beers, Aquilani et al.
(2015) specifically identified the aroma, carbonation, and degree of
foam of the beer as being important sensory attributes for craft beer
drinkers.
S.R. Jaeger, et al. Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884

1.2.3. Craft beer drinkers’ involvement in craft beer behaviors and lifestyle Table 1
activities Summary of participant characteristics (100% male) for the aggregate sample
While craft beer drinkers are often characterized by their sensory (n = 120) and the two preference segments, where CS Likers prefer craft-style
preferences for innovative beers of high flavor complexity, high quality beers with “high” flavor intensity, and TS Likers prefer traditional-style beers
with “low” flavor intensity. Responses are shown as percentages, unless
and authenticity, there are also a number of other attitudinal, motiva-
otherwise indicated. The results from comparison of the two preference seg-
tional and behavioral characteristics of craft beer drinkers that have
ments is shown in the last column.
been identified. First, craft beer drinkers are driven to seek out au-
thentic beers (Gómez-Corona et al., 2016) that are produced in small Participant Aggregate CS Likers TS Likers p-value
characteristic (n = 120) (n = 65) (n = 55)
batches by local craft brewers. They have been observed to regularly
and consistently develop their knowledge of beer and brew pubs, to Age
explore new tastes in beers, and to seek out new beers and breweries 20–39 years old 49 40 60 0.029
(Thurnell-Read, 2016). Craft beer drinkers also tend to shop at specialty 40–65 years old 51 60 40 0.029
beer stores and have been shown to have a high awareness of and Ethnicity*
knowledge of beers (Gómez-Corona et al., 2016; Jaeger et al., 2017). New Zealand European 67 77 55 0.010
They travel to local craft breweries, go to craft beer tastings, seek out Australian, European or 11 14 7 0.25
North American
and attend craft beer events (Murray & O'Neill, 2012), including craft
Maori or Pacific Island 15 11 20 0.16
beer fests, and exchange information about craft beers on social net- Chinese or Indian 12 3 22 0.001
works designed for craft beer enthusiasts. Craft beer drinkers have even Other 10 9 11 0.98
been observed to plan travel and vacations to famous brewing areas Household income (NZ$, p.a.)
such as: the U.S. Pacific Northwest, Germany and/or Belgium (Murray Less than 50,000 8 5 11 0.19
& O'Neill, 2012). Thurnell-Read (2016) discussed such behaviors in 50,000–99,999 19 22 16 0.47
terms of “serious leisure,” often characterized by steadily “increasing 100,000 or more 63 63 64 0.95
Prefer not to say 10 11 9 0.78
levels of involvement in beer, both from the perspective of knowledge
and behavioral actions” and in beer-related organizations. This in- Household size
1–2 people 35 38 31 0.39
volvement with beer as a product is similar to the involvement that has
3–4 people 43 43 44 0.95
been demonstrated with certain segments of wine drinkers (e.g., 5+ people 22 18 25 0.35
Lesschaeve & Bruwer, 2010).
Household composition*
Living alone 8 8 7 0.93
2. Research aim and objectives With spouse/partner 64 69 58 0.21
With child/ren under 30 29 31 0.81
Based on the above literature, craft beer drinkers can be differ- 18
With child/ren over 18 17 18 15 0.57
entiated from traditional beer drinkers in terms of two criteria: 1) their With parents 13 8 18 0.08
preference for innovative beers with complex flavor profiles, including With flatmates 23 15 33 0.025
those with high levels of hoppiness, fruitiness, and even sour tastes, and With other people 4 5 4 0.79
2) a greater involvement in beer and product-focused behaviors and
activities. Although preference for beers with complex and bolder flavor Notes. *) Sum of percentages exceed 100 since respondents could select more
than one option; **) Measured on 9-pt scale where 1=’dislike extremely’ and
profiles has long been considered a defining characteristic of craft beer
9=”like extremely,” with standard deviation shown between brackets.
drinkers, the evolution of the craft beer market has produced a “craft
beer lifestyle,” to which many craft beer drinkers are drawn. However,
Auckland (New Zealand) took part (Table 1). Male consumers were
the attractiveness of this “lifestyle” is driven by social and cognitive
chosen because, demographically, they constitute the largest propor-
preferences and may be independent of the sensory preferences of the
tion of craft beer drinkers.
individual, i.e. liking of beers with novel and complex flavor profiles.
Selection criteria included declared liking for beer, declared con-
This situation may produce different sub-segments within the overall
sumption at least weekly, and a declared preference for beers fitting
craft beer segment, where some “craft beer drinkers” exhibit both the
“Option 2” in the following question, asked verbatim by a recruiter: I'm
characteristic craft beer preferences and lifestyle behaviors, while
going to describe two categories of beers to you, and your task will be to
others are primarily attracted by the cognitive elements associated with
tell me which of these you prefer to drink, if you had to choose between
“being” a craft beer drinker and its “lifestyle” behaviors. Within this
them. Option 1 is beers from large mainstream breweries which in their
latter group, there may exist those who still prefer lighter flavored and
flavor are more traditional and not overly strong. Typical examples
less complex beers.
could be Export Gold, Speights or Heineken. Option 2 is beers from
To address this possibility, the aim of the present research was to
smaller craft-style breweries which in their flavor are less traditional,
examine a population of craft beer drinkers to determine, whether there
typically bolder and stronger. Typical examples could be a very hoppy
exist both individuals who prefer the more complex tastes of craft style
pale ale, a fruit beer or a chocolate stout. Perhaps from a brewery like
beers and those who prefer the taste of lighter flavored, traditional-style
the Garage Project, Epic or Sprig & Fern.1 Among beers from these two
beers. In addition, if such preference segments exist, we seek to com-
options, which do you prefer to drink? Option 1 or Option 2?
pare them in terms of: a) sensory, holistic-conceptual, cognitive, emo-
Age is a known factor in consumer preferences for craft vs. main-
tional and situational responses to tasted beers having these different
stream beers (Aquilani et al., 2015; Gómez-Corona et al., 2016; Malone
flavor characteristics, b) attitudes towards craft vs. traditional beers, c)
& Lusk, 2018; Murray & O'Neill, 2012), and for this reason quotas were
levels of need for uniqueness in foods and beverages, and d) levels of
imposed, such that the sample (near) equally comprised younger and
involvement in craft beer “lifestyle” behaviors.
older consumers: 20 to 39 years old (n = 59) and 40 to 65 years old
(n = 61).
3. Materials and methods
The participants attended one 2¼ hour research session at the Plant
3.1. Participants

Participants (n = 120) who were English-speaking males between 1

The brands were selected to suitably represent Option 1 and Option 2
20 and 65 years old with diverse socio-economic backgrounds living in breweries in the New Zealand context.

3
S.R. Jaeger, et al.
& Food Research (PFR) Consumer Insights Facility in Auckland. Prior to
each session, participants gave written informed consent and took a
breathalyzer test for alcohol content (to ensure no measurable Blood
Alcohol Concentration prior to start of the session). Compensation in
cash was given at the end of the session, and breathalyzer testing before
leaving the research facility was compulsory for all participants. The
study was approved by the PFR Human Research Ethics Committee.
3.2. Samples
3.2.1. Beer selection
The selection of beers was directly guided by the research aim and
required beers with, respectively, more complex flavors characteristic
of craft-style beers and lighter flavors characteristic of traditional-style
beers.
Craft-style beers in the “high” flavor” intensity group (HF group:
H1, H2 and H3), besides being perceived as “high” in flavor intensity
compared to beers in the LF group, were selected to represent two types
of strong flavor expression common to craft beers – hoppy (bitter) and
malty (sweet with hints of caramel, toffee and nuts). H2 was selected to
represent the imperial pale ale (IPA) style with high hop bitterness. H3,
in comparison was not hoppy or bitter, but malty and sweet. H1 was
selected to be an intermediary between H2 and H3. Beers with unique
styles/flavors such as sours, gose, bochs and stout were excluded since
they generally maintain a much smaller share of the craft beer market
(Brewers Association, 2019b).
Lagers from mainstream brands were used as traditional-style beers
in the “low” flavor intensity group (LF group: L1, L2 and L3), and as
expected these were less bitter than beers in the HF group (Table 1).
Variation in the flavor expression was sought by including: 1) a sample
with expected very low flavor while not being low in alcohol content
(L2), 2) a sample with higher alcohol content than standard for stronger
lager flavor expression (L3), and 3) a sample with slight sweet char-
acteristics (L1). Popular New Zealand beers with “low” flavor intensity,
such as Speight and Lion Red were excluded from the LF group because
of their darker color, and inability to find a suitable commercial sample
for HF group that was lighter in color while “high” in flavor intensity.
Table 2 lists the six beers used in the study and their classification as
HF or LF beers. All samples were commercially available in New
Zealand and purchased at local supermarkets and liquor stores. They
were from different national and international brands (refer to
Supplementary Fig. 1 for brand and packaging details). The final se-
lection of beers was the result of multiple rounds of pilot work invol-
ving several of the authors, sensory and consumer science professionals
(n = 3), and beer drinkers (n = 18) working at PFR. A wide selection of
beers was considered with a focus on selecting samples that fitted well
with the desired HF and LF sensory profiles. To the extent possible,
Table 2
Beer samples used in the study. L1 to L3 are beers with “low” flavor intensity,
and collectively these three beers also referred to as LF group. They represent
traditional-style beers because of their lighter and more mainstream flavors. H1
to H3 are beers with “high” flavor intensity, and collectively these three beers
are also referred to as HF group. They represent craft-style beers because of
their bolder and more complex flavors. Shown in the last two columns is basic
chemical information relating to alcohol content and bitterness (Supplementary
Table 1 contains additional basic chemistry information about the samples).
Beer Beer name % ABV Bittering Units (BU)
L1 Mac’s Gold 4.0 12
L2 Budweiser 4.9 8
L3 Carling Black Label 5.5 10
H1 Mac’s Sassy Red 4.5 30
H2 Emmerson 1820 IPA 5.0 55
H3 Suffolk Vintage Ale 6.0 23
Note. IPA – Indian Pale Ale. ABV = Alcohol by volume.
4
Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884
given the use of commercial products, the alcohol content of beers in
the LF and HF groups was as similar as possible, on average (Table 2).
This was an important consideration to avoid alcohol being a con-
founding factor between LF and HF beers. Additional information on
the chemical composition of the samples is given in Supplementary
Table 1.
3.2.2. Sample presentation
Serving size (55–60 mL) was determined to ensure that the total
intake of alcohol during each research session was less than 1.5 New
Zealand standard drinks (< 15 g pure alcohol). This requirement was
imposed by the study’s ethics approval.
The beers were stored at 1–2 °C and served within 5 min of being
removed from refrigeration (~5 °C). Clear glasses (tumbler shape,
150 mL) labelled with 3-digit random codes were used (see
Supplementary Fig. 1 for an image of the samples as presented to
consumers). Samples were presented monadically according to a
modified Latin Square design.
3.3. Empirical procedures
3.3.1. Measurements obtained from consumers in response to tasted craft-
style and traditional-style beers
In accordance with the research aim and objectives, the beers were
assessed using a single ballot that had multiple parts, in the order: i)
acceptability and sensory characteristics, ii) holistic and conceptual
perceptions, and iii) cognitive, emotional and situational associations.
Acceptability was measured using a fully labelled 9-pt category
scale with end-point anchors 1 = ‘dislike extremely’ and 9 = ‘like
extremely’ (Peryam & Pilgrim, 1957).
Sensory product descriptions were obtained with a check-all-that-
apply (CATA) question (Ares & Jaeger, 2015) containing terms relevant
for the focal set of samples and for discrimination between beers with
“low” and “high” flavor intensity. The 11 terms were: ‘weak aroma’,
‘strong aroma’, ‘sweet’, ‘bitter’, ‘hoppy’, ‘malty’, ‘oaky/wood-like’,
‘fruity’, ‘watery/bland’, ‘short aftertaste, and ‘long aftertaste’, and the
use of composite terms (e.g., ‘watery/bland’) was supported by Jaeger,
Hunter et al. (2019). Term order was randomized across participants
(Ares et al., 2015).
A second CATA question was used to obtain responses relating to
holistic sensory characteristics and other product conceptualizations.
With input from, for example, Jaeger, Hunter et al. (2019) the terms
were selected to be relevant for: i) discrimination between “low” and
“high” flavor intensity beers, and ii) characterization of beers labelled
as “brewed by a large mainstream brewery outside of New Zealand” or
“brewed by a small craft brewery in New Zealand.” The 18 terms were:
‘artisan’, ‘balanced’, ‘cheap’, ‘comforting’, ‘complex’, ‘easy-to-drink’,
‘familiar’, ‘full-bodied’, ‘industrial’, ‘insipid’, ‘masculine’, ‘memorable’,
‘powerful’, ‘simple’, ‘smooth’, ‘sophisticated’, ‘substantial’, and ‘thirst
quenching’. Term order was randomized across participants (Ares et al.,
2015).
Thirteen statements covering a range of cognitive, emotional and
situational aspects of the beers were included based on Cardello et al.
(2016), Gómez-Corona, Escalona-Buendía et al. (2017), Gómez-Corona,
Chollet et al. (2017), and Jaeger et al. (2017, 2019), as well as pilot
work with the focal set of samples. The statements were selected to aid
exploration of Objectives 1 and 2, and, therefore, pertained to per-
ceptual understanding of craft and traditional beers: 1) “I consider this
to be a good quality beer,” 2) “When I want to savour2 a beer by myself,
this is the kind of beer I would drink,” 3) “This beer evokes a positive
emotion in me,” 4) “This is a good beer for many different social situa-
tions,” 5) “This is a unique beer,” 6) “In my opinion, this tastes like a
2
New Zealand English spelling were used for data collection and is retain
here for accuracy.
S.R. Jaeger, et al.
craft beer,” 7) “In my opinion, this tastes like a mainstream beer,” 8)
“This beer bores me” (boring), 9) “I think “beer aficionados” would enjoy
this beer,” 10) “If I wanted to drink more than one glass of the same
beer, I’d chose this one,” 11) “I would drink this beer in the company of
like-minded beer drinkers,” 12) “This beer has an authentic taste,” and 13)
“This beer reminds me of those I typically drink” (words shown in italic
font refer to labels used in Figs. 1 and 2). Responses were obtained on
fully labelled 7-pt Likert scales (1 = “disagree strongly”; 7 = “agree
strongly”), with statement order randomized across participants (Ares
et al., 2015).
Prior to data collection, the relevance of the terms included in CATA
questions and Likert statement wordings was confirmed with pilot re-
search participants (declared craft beer drinkers). Partial overlap in
response measures was deliberate, in order to increase the robustness of
the findings and to guard against method bias. For example, ‘bland/
watery’ and ‘insipid’ could be regarded as synonymous terms relating to
low flavor intensity, and the conceptual CATA term ‘artisan’ was ex-
pected to capture a response inversely related to that for the statement
“In my opinion, this tastes like a mainstream beer.”
All participants received verbal instructions on how to complete the
tasks and were encouraged to ask questions to resolve ambiguities.
Sample assessments took place in standard sensory testing booths
(white lighting, 20–22 °C, positive air flow) during sample assessments.
Between samples there was a break of 1–2 min, and during this time
water and plain crackers were available for palate cleansing (en-
couraged, but not enforced). The study’s human ethics approval stipu-
lated that the beer tasting tasks be followed by other tasks involving
food tasting in order to facilitate metabolism of the consumed alcohol.
Because these filler tasks were unrelated to the present research, they
are not discussed further.
3.3.2. Questionnaire responses obtained from consumers
Following sample evaluations, participants completed a ques-
tionnaire linked to beer. Stated liking was recorded on a 9-pt scale from
1 = ‘dislike extremely’ to 9 = ‘like extremely,’ while an 8-pt scale from
‘daily’ to ‘never’ was used to capture frequency of beer consumption.
Participants’ general attitudes to beer were obtained through five
statements (7-pt Likert scale): 1) “I prefer beer with a strong, full-
bodied taste,” 2) “I seek out beers made by small, local, independent
breweries,” 3) “I like beers that are of high quality and authenticity,” 4)
“I don’t usually care for industrial beers that are mass-distributed,” and
5) “I choose my beer carefully.”
Focusing on craft beer, four statements (7-pt Likert scales) were
used: 1) “I love to experiment with different styles of craft beer,” 2) “I
see myself drinking more craft beer in the future than I do today,” 3)
“Seeking out and drinking craft beer has become a hobby for me,” and
4) “Craft beer has changed my perception of what constitutes high
quality beer.” Craft beer involvement was measured using a 3-item
scale: “To me, craft beer matters”, “I have a strong interest in craft
beer”, “Craft beer is important to me” (7-pt Likert scales) as done by
Jaeger, Xia et al. (2019).
A final set of 16 questions that sought to capture craft beer activities
and behaviors expected to be prevalent among craft beer drinkers and
applicable to the New Zealand context was constructed, based on
findings from the literature (Aquilani et al., 2015; Gómez-Corona,
Chollet et al., 2017; Thurnell-Read, 2016). A forced yes-no question was
used, with statement order randomized across participants (Ares et al.,
2015). The behavioral statements were: 1) “I have visited and tasted
beers at a local craft brewery,” 2) “I have researched different types of
beers and brewing styles on-line,” 3) “I have attended a “beer fest” or
other organized beer tasting event,” 4) “I visit on-line chat rooms that
discuss new craft beers and breweries,” 5) “I am on a mailing list of a
local brewery,” 6) “I have purchased special beer glasses designed to
hold different types of beers,” 7) “I purchase and refill flagons of beer at
local breweries,” 8) “I have a beer refrigerator in my home,” 9) “I have
a beer tap in my house,” 10) “I own shirts or hats with brewer names
5
Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884
and logos on them,” 11) “I purchase and/or trade specialty beers on-
line,” 12) “I will drive several hours to go to a craft brewery I like in
order to purchase their beer,” 13) “I participate in on-line beer rating
sites to express my opinion about different beers,” 14) “I am willing to
pay a very large price for craft beers that are new to the market,” 15) “I
read beer magazines and publications,” and 16) “I buy beer from beer
specialty stores.”
In the final survey, at the end of the research session, demographic
and socio-economic information was obtained. In addition, due to the
fact that the unique flavors of craft beers have been shown to motivate
the consumption of craft beer drinkers (Gómez-Corona, Escalona-
Buendía et al., 2017; Gómez-Corona et al., 2016), a short version of the
Food and Beverage Need for Uniqueness (FBNFU) scale (Cardello et al.,
2019) was also administered. This short version included 12 items from
the original scale, such as “I’m often on the lookout for new foods or
beverages that will add to my personal uniqueness,” and “I often try to
find a more interesting version of run-of-the-mill products, because I
enjoy being original” (See Supplementary Table 2 for all scale items).
Responses were obtained on 7-point Likert scales. The rationale behind
selection of the subset of FBNFU items for use in the short version and
its psychometric properties as assessed by Rasch modeling were pre-
sented by Okojie, Ho, and Li (2019).
3.4. Data analysis
All analyses were performed in the R language (R Core Team, 2019),
using 5% as the level of significance.
3.4.1. Responses to tasted craft-style and traditional-style beers
The first step was to establish consumer segments based on product
liking/disliking, which was done using Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
(unstandardized scores, Euclidian distance, Ward’s method) and re-
taining a two-cluster solution in accordance with a scree plot.
Within each cluster, several analyses were performed, starting with
ratings of product acceptability which were analyzed by ANOVA using
beer samples as a fixed factor and treating respondents as a random
effect. Tukey’s method was applied for post-hoc testing. Also, within
each cluster, CATA responses were analyzed separately for the two
question types (sensory and holistic/conceptual) using standard pro-
cedures. Specifically, the frequency of term use was determined sepa-
rately for each CATA term by counting the number of consumers that
used that term to characterize each beer sample. Cochran’s Q test was
carried out to identify significant differences among samples for the
frequency of use of each CATA term (Manoukian, 1986). When differ-
ences were significant, the McNemar test was used for pairwise com-
parisons between products (Meyners, Castura, & Carr, 2013). A Corre-
spondence Analysis (CA) on the frequency table was carried out to
obtain a bi-dimensional representation of samples and terms using the
chi-square distance. Finally, the responses to Likert statements were
analyzed using the ANOVA procedures applied to acceptability scores,
and Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the correlation matrix.
3.4.2. Questionnaire responses
Stated liking for beer, attitudinal responses and frequency of beer
consumption was analyzed similarly to acceptability measures for
tasted beers, as directed by Objectives 1 and 2, respectively.
Involvement with craft beer was established as a single index for
each participant, summing across the three items (possible range:
3–21). In all sub-group analyses this was supported by Cronbach alpha
≥0.8, which exceeded the 0.7 threshold (Nunnally, 1978). The
summed score was subject to the same ANOVA as above. For the 12
items used to approximate FBNFU (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84), the
average scores calculated for each participant were subjected to
ANOVA similarly to above.
The responses to each of the 16 statements about specific activities
related to beers were coded as ‘yes’=1 and ‘no’=0, and analyzed using
S.R. Jaeger, et al. Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884

Table 3 contains the biplot for CS Likers and Fig. 1b contains the corresponding
Average scores for overall liking for beers included in the study, obtained from plot for TS Likers (C2). Comparing these two spaces, it can be seen that
120 declared craft beer drinkers. The results are also shown by preference the sensory characterizations of types of beers (H1-3 and L1-3) are
segment, where CS Likers prefer craft-style beers with “high” flavor intensity, nearly identical for the two preference clusters. Both CS Likers and TS
and TS Likers prefer traditional-style beers with “low” flavor intensity.
Likers characterized the LF beers as ‘watery/bland,’ followed by ‘weak
Responses measured on 9-pt scale where 1=’dislike extremely’ and 9=’like
aroma,’ and ‘short aftertaste’ and to a lesser extent ‘sweet.’ In contrast,
extremely.’ Results from Turkey’s HSD post-hoc test (5% level) are shown using
the primary characteristics of HF beers, in both consumer clusters, was
letters, performed for comparison within consumer groups (i.e., within col-
umns). ‘strong aroma’ and ‘long aftertaste’, followed by ‘bitter.’ Although more
strongly experienced by CS Likers than TS Likers, as seen in the se-
Beer Aggregate (n = 120) CS Likers (n = 65) TS Likers (n = 55)
paration of H2 and H3 along Dimension 2 in Fig. 1a and 1b, both
L1 5.7b 4.8c 6.6 a clusters also characterized H2 as more ‘hoppy’ while H3 was more
L2 5.8b 5.1c 6.7 a ‘malty’ and ‘oaky/wood-like.’ These data not only serve to confirm that
L3 5.7b 4.6c 7.1 a the beers selected for inclusion in the HF and LF sets met the criteria for
H1 6.5 a 7.0 a 5.8b labelling as HF or LF beers (McNemar tests showed no instances of
H2 6.7 a 7.5 a 5.8b
H3 5.5b 6.0b 5.0c
individual beers being perceived contrary to expectations), they also
show that regardless of the inherent flavor preferences of consumers,
the sensory experience of the beers was very similar and not strongly
logistic regression, with factor specification similar to the ANOVAs used influenced by those preferences.
for continuous variables. The bottom row of Fig. 1 shows the first two dimensions of the CA
bi-plots for the holistic and conceptual CATA evaluations of the tasted
beers. The data from CS Likers and TS Likers resulted in highly similar
4. Results
sample configurations, with the HF and LF beers, respectively, grouped
in spatial proximity, and separated from each other along Dimension 1
4.1. Preference-based consumer segments
(Fig. 1c vs. 1d). Two minor between-cluster differences in the sample
configurations was the separation of H2 from H3 in the CS Likers data
The research was designed around the expectation that among de-
(which was attributed to the latter being perceived as less ‘sophisti-
clared craft beer drinkers, preference clusters would emerge for those
cated’ and ‘artisan’ – Fig. 1c), and in the TS Likers data, the separation of
consumers who prefer craft-style beers that have more complex and
L3 from L1 and L2 (through its weaker associations with ‘simple’ and
bolder flavors, and those who prefer traditional-style beers that are
stronger associations with ‘smooth’ – Fig. 1d). Consumers in the two
lighter flavored.
preference clusters similarly described the 3 HF beers as ‘powerful,’
A hierarchical cluster analysis of the acceptability data for the 6
‘complex,’ and ‘full-bodied,’ and to a lesser extent ‘substantial,’ ‘mas-
beers confirmed such two distinct preference clusters (Table 3). In one
culine,’ ‘artisan,’ and ‘sophisticated.’ They also similarly described the 3
cluster, which comprised 54% of respondents, the 3 beers with the
LF beers as ‘simple’ and to a lesser extent ‘thirst-quenching’ and ‘easy-
highest liking were the 3 HF beers. Beers H2 and H1 were the best liked
to-drink.’ However, between-cluster differences were more pronounced
and were rated as significantly more well liked than H3. However, the 3
than for samples, and most noteworthy was the association for ‘in-
HF beers were liked significantly better than the 3 LF beers (L1-3). The
dustrial,’ which CS Likers linked with LF beers and TS Likers linked with
probable reason that H3 was liked significantly less than H2 and H1 is
HF beers. CS Likers strongly linked ‘insipid’ with LF beers, while TS
that H3 was the one malty (as opposed to hoppy) beer among the HF
Likers did so much less (and there was a similar trend for ‘cheap’). For
samples. Consumers in the second cluster, which comprised 46% of
‘comforting’ the reverse was observed: a strong association to LF beers
respondents, liked all of the 3 LF beers significantly more than the 3 HF
among TS Likers and a weak association to HF beers among CS Likers.
beers.
For TS Likers, ‘balanced’ and ‘comforting’ were characteristic of LF
Having confirmed two distinct preference clusters among the de-
beers, but CS Likers neither strongly associated these terms with HF or
clared craft beer drinkers: craft-style likers (CS Likers) who preferred
LF beers. Overall, the holistic and conceptual data show that both
the more complex, bolder and more intensely flavored beers (H1-3) and
preference clusters perceive the same sample similarities and differ-
traditional-style likers (TS Likers) who preferred the less complex and
ences, but some of their characterizations differ. Notably, some con-
mild flavored beers (L1-3), these two preference groups were compared
ceptualizations differ between CS Likers and TS Likers, seemingly in a
in terms of: a) sensory, holistic-conceptual, and cognitive, emotional
manner shaped by their flavor preferences.
and situational responses to tasted craft-style and traditional-style
beers, b) attitudes towards craft vs. traditional beers, and c) levels of
4.3. Cognitive, emotional and situational characteristics of tasted craft-style
involvement in craft beer “lifestyle” behaviors. The expectation was
and traditional-style beers
that regardless of preference cluster membership, beer enthusiasts will
perceive the sensory, holistic-conceptual, cognitive, emotional and si-
Results of the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) conducted on
tuational characteristics of craft-style and traditional-style beers simi-
the responses to the cognitive, emotive and situational usage statements
larly, but their attitudes towards craft and traditional beers and their
about the six beers are shown in Fig. 2. Relative to the sensory and
levels of behavioral involvement in craft beer activities may differ.
holistic-conceptual evaluations, the differences between the two pre-
For completeness we observe that the TS Likers segment had a
ference clusters were more extensive.
higher proportion of younger drinkers than the CS Likers segment and
For CS Likers, the dominant Dimension 1 separates HF and LF beers
these consumers were more likely to live with flat mates. In the CS
(Fig. 2a). LF beers are similarly perceived and characterized by only
Likers segment a larger proportion of consumers identified as New
two statements, “this beer bores me” and “in my opinion, this tastes like
Zealand European, and fewer identified as Chinese or Indian.
a mainstream beer.” Since the consumers in this cluster prefer HF beers,
this characterization of the LF beers is to be expected. Statements more
4.2. Sensory and holistic-conceptual characteristics of tasted craft-style and characteristic of HF than LF beers (Fig. 2c) were: “this beer reminds me
traditional-style beers of those I typically drink,” “I think “beer aficionados” would enjoy this
beer,” “if I wanted to drink more than one glass of the same beer, I’d
Results of Correspondence Analysis (CA) conducted on the sensory chose this one,” “when I want to savour a beer by myself, this is the
CATA data following beer tasting are shown in Fig. 1, where Fig. 1a kind of beer I would drink,” “I consider this to be a good quality beer,”

6
S.R. Jaeger, et al. Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884

Fig. 1. Results for six tasted beer samples: L1, L2, L3, H1, H2, and H3 (refer to Table 1 for full sample details). Shown are biplots spanned by the first two dimensions
following Correspondence Analysis. Top row: (a) and (b) sensory product perceptions, with CATA terms and sample positions for CS Likers (who prefer craft-style
beers with “high” flavor intensity) and TS Likers (who prefer traditional-style beers with “low” flavor intensity), respectively; and bottom row: (c) and (d) conceptual
and holistic product perceptions, with CATA terms and sample positions for CS Likers and TS Likers respectively. Average samples positions shown with 95%
confidence ellipses.

“this beer evokes a positive emotion in me,” “this beer has an authentic
taste,” “this is a unique beer,” and “in my opinion, this tastes like a craft
beer.” All of these characterizations are what would be expected from a
craft beer drinker who prefers more complex, bolder and more intensely
flavored beers (i.e., H1-3). The spatial separation of H1 and H2 from
H3, with the latter positioned towards the LF beers was linked to the
statement “this is a good beer for many different social situations.” CS
Likers agreed less with this statement for H3 than for H1 and H2 (3.6 vs.
4.9–5.4), which possibly could be due to its malty and oaky flavors
(Fig. 1a).
The comparable data for TS Likers (C2), who prefer LF beers, are
different in several ways to the responses from the CS Likers. Further to
the separation of HF and LF beers on Dimension 1, the 3 beers within
each of these flavor groupings are separated on Dimension 2 (Fig. 2b).
H3 and H1 are grouped and separated from H2, and L1 is separated
from L3, with L2 in an intermediate position. TS Likers characterize all
of the 3 HF beers by the statements: “I think ‘beer aficionados’ would
enjoy this beer,” “this beer has an authentic taste,” “this is a unique
beer,” and “in my opinion, this tastes like a craft beer,” and in this
regard they are similar to the CS Likers. Similar for the two preference
groups is the use of the statement “in my opinion, this tastes like a
mainstream beer” to characterize the 3 LF beers. Contrary to the CS
Likers, they do not view “mainstream” as a negative characteristic, as
seen from the other statements also used by TS Likers to characterize LF
beers: “if I wanted to drink more than one glass of the same beer, I’d
chose this one,” “when I want to savour a beer by myself, this is the
kind of beer I would drink,” “this beer evokes a positive emotion in
me,” “I would drink this beer in the company of like-minded beer drin-
kers,” and “this beer reminds me of those I typically drink.” The pre-
ference for LF beers resonates with agreement on these statements and

7
S.R. Jaeger, et al. Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884

Fig. 2. Results for six tasted beer samples: L1, L2, L3, H1, H2, and H3 (refer to Table 1 for full sample details). Shown are plots spanned by the first two dimensions
following Principal Components Analysis. Top row: (a) and (b) product spaces for CS Likers (who prefer craft-style beers with “high” flavor intensity) and TS Likers
(who prefer traditional-style beers with “low” flavor intensity), respectively; and bottom row: (c) and (d) variable spaces showing attitudinal, emotional, and
situational responses for CS Likers and TS Likers, respectively. Average samples positions shown with 95% confidence ellipses. See Section 2 for full statement
wordings.

can also explain why the statement “this is a good beer for many dif-
ferent social situations” is seen as fitting with these beers. Perhaps the
most noteworthy difference relative to the conceptualizations among
CS Likers was found for the two statements: “I consider this to be a good
quality beer” and “this beer bores me” which applied equally to HF and
LF beers (4.4–5.1 and 3.0–3.2, respectively). This showed that despite
preferring the flavor of the 3 LF beers, TS Likers conferred some of the
same conceptualizations to HF beers as those linked to LF beers.
4.4. Attitudes and behaviors linked to craft beers
Having established two clusters of declared craft beer drinkers with
different taste preferences (CS Likers and TS Likers) and having ex-
amined their responses to tasted craft-style and traditional-style beers,
the next step was to assess whether differences exist in their attitudes
and behaviors toward craft beers by examining the responses obtained
in the post-tasting questionnaire (Table 4).
First, as it relates to declared liking for beer, there was no significant
difference between CS Likers and TS Likers, indicating that both clusters
equally enjoyed beer (8.3 and 8.1, respectively), even though their
liking for specific flavor profiles of beers differed. Similarly, there was
no significant difference in their involvement in craft beers as measured
by the craft beer involvement scale (17.0 and 16.4, respectively).
With regard to general attitudes toward beer (Table 4), CS Likers
agreed significantly more than did TS Likers with three statements (7-pt
scales) that form the essential elements of the definition of craft beer: “I
prefer beer with a strong, full-bodied taste” (6.0 vs. 4.8), “I seek out
beers made by small, local, independent breweries” (5.4 vs. 4.7) and “I
like beers that are of high quality and authenticity” (6.3 vs. 5.8). CS
Likers also agreed significantly more than did TS Likers with the

8
S.R. Jaeger, et al. Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884

Table 4
Attitudes to beer and beer-related behaviors measured in post-tasting questionnaire. Mean values based on survey responses for CS Likers (who prefer craft-style beers
with “high” flavor intensity) and TS Likers (who prefer traditional-style beers with “low” flavor intensity).
Questions CS Likers(n = 65) TS Likers (n = 55) p-value

1. Attitudes to beer*
1a. Stated liking for beer 8.3 8.1 0.33
1b. I prefer beer with a strong, full-bodied taste 6.0 4.8 < 0.001
1c. I seek out beers made by small, local, independent breweries 5.4 4.7 0.007
1d. I like beers that are of high quality and authenticity 6.3 5.8 0.012
1e. I don’t usually care for industrial beers that are mass-distributed 4.8 4.3 0.14
1f. I choose my beer carefully 5.7 5.6 0.55
1g. Craft beer has changed my perception of what constitutes high quality beer 6.2 5.5 0.003
1h. I love to experiment with different styles of craft beer 6.0 5.5 0.041
1i. Seeking out and drinking craft beer has become a hobby for me 5.0 4.5 0.10
1j. I see myself drinking more craft beer in the future than I do today 5.5 5.4 0.66
1k. Involvement with craft beer 17.0 16.4 0.25
2. Beer-related behaviors**
2a. Frequency of drinking beer 1.8 1.9 0.30
2b. I purchase and refill flagons of beer at local breweries 0.34 0.16 0.030
2c. I have a beer tap in my house 0.08 0.00 0.036
2d. I have visited and tasted beers at a local craft brewery 0.88 0.76 0.11
2e. I read beer magazines and publications 0.20 0.13 0.29
2f. I have attended a “beer fest” or other organized beer tasting event 0.74 0.66 0.32
2g. I will drive several hours to go to a craft brewery I like in order to purchase their beer 0.28 0.20 0.33
2h. I have a beer refrigerator in my home 0.46 0.44 0.78
2i. I own shirts or hats with brewer names and logos on them 0.42 0.42 0.98
2j. I am on a mailing list of a local brewery 0.25 0.26 0.92
2k. I buy beer from beer specialty stores 0.59 0.60 0.87
2l. I am willing to pay a very large price for craft beers that are new to the market 0.39 0.44 0.57
2m. I have researched different types of beers and brewing styles on-line 0.45 0.51 0.49
2n. I purchase and/or trade specialty beers on-line 0.15 0.22 0.37
2o. I participate in on-line beer rating sites to express my opinion about different beers 0.15 0.24 0.26
2p. I have purchased special beer glasses designed to hold different types of beers 0.39 0.51 0.17
2q. I visit on-line chat rooms that discuss new craft beers and breweries 0.05 0.13 0.11

Notes. *) For (1a) responses obtained on an 9-pt scale from 1=’dislike extremely’ to 9=’like extremely.’ For (1b) to (1j) responses obtained on a 7-pt scale from
1=’strongly disagree’ to 7=’strongly agree.’ For (k) summed values across 3 statements are shown, each measured on 7-pt scales from 1=’strongly disagree’ to
7=’strongly agree.’ Higher values indicate greater involvement with craft beer. **) For (2a) responses obtained on an 8-pt scale from 1=’daily’ to 8=’never’. For (2b)
to (2q) responses obtained as ‘yes’=1 or ‘no’=0 and mean values calculated.

statements “I love to experiment with different styles of craft beer” (6.0
vs. 5.5) and “Craft beer has changed my perception of what constitutes
high quality beer” (6.2 vs. 5.5). The former statement speaks to the
motivational element of craft beer drinkers to seek out new beers
(Aquilani et al., 2015; Thurnell-Read, 2016), while the latter statement
serves as an indication that experience with craft-style beers opens the
individual to a new internal standard for what constitutes quality in a
beer. Lastly, consumers in the CS Likers cluster also agreed more
strongly with the statement “I don’t usually care for industrial beers
that are mass-distributed” although the difference did not reach be-
tween-cluster significance.
With regard to the 16 beer-related behaviors listed in the ques-
tionnaire (Table 4), there were only two behaviors for which the cluster
responses differed: “I purchase and refill flagons of beer at local
breweries” and “I have a beer tap in my house.” In both cases, CS Likers
engaged in these behaviors significantly more often than the TS Likers
(34 vs. 16% and 8 vs. 0%, respectively).
The two preference segments did not differ in food and beverage
specific need for uniqueness. The average score for the 12 FBNFU items
was 3.7 (1.7) among CS Likers and 3.7 (1.8) among TS Likers
(p > 0.05).
5. Discussion
5.1. Preference segmentation for tasted craft-style and traditional-style
beers among declared craft beer drinkers
The fundamental questions that this research set out to explore was
whether different preference segments exist among declared craft beer
drinkers. Although craft beers are often characterized as having novel
or rich, intense and composite flavor characteristics (Donadini &
Porretta, 2017), it is possible that some craft beer drinkers are not at-
tracted to these more intense flavor characteristics in the beer, but ra-
ther, are attracted to other aspects of craft beers and craft beer drinking,
including the authenticity of the beer, its local quality, the social op-
portunities and/or the comraderies that exists when one is a member of
the craft beer drinking segment. This hypothesis, that preference seg-
ments exist among declared craft beer drinkers, was confirmed in the
present research, as demonstrated by the cluster analysis conducted on
the blind liking ratings for the “high” and “low” flavor beers tested in
this research. The results clearly showed the existence of two distinct
clusters of declared craft beer drinkers – one of whom preferred the
three craft-style beers with “high” flavor (HF) intensity (hoppy, bitter
and malty ales and IPAs), and one of whom preferred the three tradi-
tional-style beers with “low” flavor (LF) intensity (mainstream lager
flavors) (Table 3).
These preference clusters (CS Likers and TS Likers) existed in spite of
the fact that the individuals within these clusters did not differ in terms
of their stated liking for beers, the care with which they chose their
beers, their need for unique foods/beverages, their involvement with
craft beer, or their projected future consumption of craft beers. Where
they did differ was in terms of their preference for strong full-bodied
taste, as well as their propensity to seek beers from small local brew-
eries, their preference for beers of high quality and authenticity and the
stated degree to which craft beers had altered their perception of what
constitutes high quality in beer.
The existence of such preference clusters among declared craft beer
drinkers has not previously been reported and this highlights the fact
that craft beer drinkers cannot be defined by a simple preference for
novel or high flavor-impact beers. Rather, other perceptual, attitudinal,
cognitive, conceptual, emotional and/or behavioral factors must be
considered in order to develop a more complete characterization of the

9
S.R. Jaeger, et al.
craft beer drinking segment and to better tailor craft beers and craft
beer marketing to these different segments. Some of these latter factors
may include differences on variables already identified in the literature
as pertaining to craft beer drinkers, including product knowledge and
involvement (Gómez-Corona et al., 2016; Jaeger et al., 2017; Thurnell-
Read, 2016), beer-related behaviors and activities (Murray & O'Neill,
2012; Thurnell-Read, 2016) or even shopping and travel preferences
(Gómez-Corona et al., 2016; Murray & O'Neill, 2012). Still others may
reside in the differences in sensory, emotional, attitudinal and cognitive
variables identified as discriminating between these two flavor pre-
ference clusters in the present research.
5.2. Other responses to tasted craft-style and traditional-style beers
5.2.1. Sensory characteristics
The first question raised by the existence of the above two pre-
ference clusters is whether these clusters perceive differently the sen-
sory characteristics of craft-style (HF) beers and traditional-style (LF)
beers. The answer is “no.” This is clearly evidenced in the highly similar
perceptual spaces resulting from the sensory CATA data in Fig. 1a and
b, where both clusters characterized the traditional-style beers as ‘wa-
tery,’ ‘weak’ and having a ‘short aftertaste’ and the craft-style beers as
‘bitter,’ ‘hoppy,’ and having ‘a strong aroma’ and ‘a long aftertaste.’
Furthermore, both clusters clearly characterized beer H3 as being more
malty and oaky than either of the other craft-style beers. These data
support the notion that the two preference clusters perceive craft-style
and traditional-style beers similarly, but that the CS Likers simply like
beers with stronger aroma, longer aftertaste and greater bitter, hoppy
and malty tastes, while TS Likers prefer the taste of weaker flavored
beers with less aroma and a shorter aftertaste. Essentially, neither
consumer segment mischaracterizes the true sensory attributes of their
beer choices as a form of self-deception to support their choices. Rather,
both CS Likers and TS Likers see the beers for what they are and simply
prefer them differently.
5.2.2. Holistic and conceptual characteristics
Given that the two preference clusters perceive similarly the sensory
properties of craft-style and traditional-style beers, might their con-
ceptualizations about them differ? Although the conceptualization
spaces shown in Fig. 1c and d are similar for the two clusters, showing
that both clusters conceptualized the craft-style (HF) beers as ‘full-
bodied,’ ‘substantial,’ ‘masculine,’ ‘complex,’ ‘powerful’ and ‘memor-
able’ and the traditional-style (LF) beers as ‘familiar,’ ‘smooth,’ ‘ba-
lanced,’ ‘comforting,’ ‘easy to drink,’ and ‘thirst-quenching’, some dif-
ferences were observed between the preference clusters for specific
conceptualizations and specific beers. In particular, the conceptualiza-
tion of HF and LF beers were quite different between the two clusters,
with CS Likers characterizing LF beers as “industrial” and TS Likers
characterizing HF beers as “industrial.” However, this finding may be
attributable to differences in the semantic meaning of the word “in-
dustrial.” On the one hand, this word can be viewed as synonymous
with “commercial” or “mainstream,” meaning “ordinary” or “not spe-
cial,” an interpretation that might be consistent with CS Likers usage of
the term to describe LF beers. On the other hand, “industrial” could be
construed as meaning “heavy or robust,” as in “industrial strength.”
This latter interpretation might apply to the TS Likers’ use of this word
to describe HF beers. With regard to differences between clusters for
specific beers, the CA bi-plots (Fig. 1) show that the relative spatial
relationships among the beers differed somewhat by clusters. Given that
the 3 HF and 3 LF beers differed somewhat in their specific flavor
profiles, it is not surprising that one specific beer might produce slightly
different conceptualizations between preference clusters. In particular,
H3 among the HF beers was malty and sweet vs. the hoppy and bitter
H1 and H2 beers, which may account for its separation from H2 in the
CS Likers’ data, while L3 had a higher alcohol content than L1 or L2,
which may account for its separation in the TS Likers’ data. Thus, while
10
Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884
the two preference clusters perceived the sensory properties of the two
different beer types similarly, their conceptualizations of the beers
differed slightly, depending on the specific flavor characteristics of the
beers.
5.2.3. Cognitive, emotional and situational characteristics
The cognitive, emotional and situational use variables showed
greater divergence between the preference clusters than either the
sensory or holistic-conceptual variables. Examination of Fig. 2 shows
that, although the beer drinkers in both preference clusters character-
ized HF beers similarly, i.e., “I think “beer aficionados” would enjoy
this beer,” “this beer has an authentic taste,” “this is a unique beer,” and
“in my opinion, this tastes like a craft beer,” CS Likers diverged from TS
Likers on almost all of the other conceptualizations, characterizing the
HF beers as those “they typically drink,” “that like-minded drinkers
drink,” for “when they want more than one” and that evoke “positive
emotions,” all characteristics that TS Likers ascribed to the LF beers.
One can interpret these data to mean that, while beer drinkers who
prefer LF beers (TS Likers) perceive the HF beers to be authentic, un-
ique, good quality craft beers that would be consumed by beer aficio-
nados, they accurately perceive LF beers to be those that they them-
selves typically drink and from which they derive positive emotions.
They also view these LF beers as the ones they desire when they want to
drink more than one beer and when they want to savor a beer by
themselves. Lastly, they view LF beers as the ones they would consume
in many different social situations, and very importantly, they accu-
rately perceive these LF beers to be “mainstream,” a characteristic also
ascribed to these beers by CS Likers.
The above findings raise issues for further consideration regarding
how the stated preferences and common choices of the TS Likers con-
sumer segment of craft beer drinkers fit within the broader perspective
of craft beer drinker preferences and choices and whether their pre-
ferences are fully met within the current craft beer market. We return to
this issue later.
5.3. Attitudes and behaviors linked to craft beers
The post-tasting questionnaire administered to gain additional in-
sights into craft beer drinking attitudes and behaviors revealed several
important similarities and differences between the two preference
clusters. For one, the clusters did not differ in their general liking of
beer, their involvement with beer or their need for uniqueness in foods/
beverages. Past studies have shown that craft beer drinkers have a
higher general liking for beer than non-craft beer drinkers (Jaeger et al.,
2017; Malone & Lusk, 2018). The fact that the preference clusters did
not differ on this variable suggests that there is nothing distinct about
the TS Likers that makes them different from other craft beer drinkers in
terms of general liking for beer. Similarly, aficionados of any product
class are likely to be more involved in the product than the average
consumer of that product (Bell & Marshall, 2003; Laurent & Kapferer,
1985; Mittal & Lee, 1989; Zaichkowsky, 1985). The fact that the clus-
ters did not differ in involvement with beer again suggests that TS Likers
are not unlike the CS Likers in this regard. Lastly, since the clusters did
not differ in need for uniqueness of foods/beverages, there appears to
be no difference in their propensity to seek out novelty in their beer.
In contrast to the above similarities in the clusters, unlike the CS
Likers, the TS Likers agreed significantly less with the statements “I seek
out beers made by small, local, independent breweries” and “I like beers
that are of high quality and authenticity.” Both of these statements
strike at the heart of the definition of craft beer (Acitelli & Magee, 2017;
Elzinga et al., 2015) and of craft beer drinkers (Aquilani et al., 2015;
Gómez-Corona et al., 2016). The fact that the TS Likers agreed with
these statements significantly less may reflect the fact that this sub-
segment of craft beer drinkers ascribe less closely to the essential ele-
ments of what defines craft beer.
Similarly, although the two preference clusters failed to differ in the
S.R. Jaeger, et al.
frequency of performing most of the behaviors associated with the craft
beer drinking lifestyle, the TS Likers agreed significantly less with the
statements “I purchase and refill flagons of beer at local breweries” and
“I have a beer tap in my house,” both of which reflect regular purchase
and use of craft beers.
5.4. General discussion
Although it is clear that two different preference clusters (CS Likers
and TS Likers) exist among declared craft beer drinkers, these two
segments do not differ in their sensory characterization of craft-style
and traditional-style beers. Neither do they differ greatly in their hol-
istic and conceptual perceptions of these beer types, save for some
minor beer-specific differences. Somewhat greater differences can be
observed in the cognitive, emotional and situational use responses of
these two preference segments to the beers examined in this study, but
these differences correspond to what would be expected from their
observed flavor preferences (e.g., CS Likers characterize HF beers as
those “they typically drink,” “that like-minded drinkers drink,” for use
“when they want more than one” and that evoke “positive emotions,”
while TS Likers ascribe these same characteristics to LF beers). From a
behavioral or “craft beer lifestyle” perspective, the two preference
segments only differ in behaviors that reflect regular purchase and use
of craft beers, a fact that raises issues related to the extent to which the
TS Likers segment can be considered avid craft beer drinkers. More
critically to this point, the expressed attitudes toward craft beers by the
TS Likers segment failed to reflect some of the core attitudes tradi-
tionally ascribed to craft beer drinkers in the literature, such as the
desire for beers of high quality and authenticity and the motivation to
seek out small, local independent breweries (Aquilani et al., 2015;
Gómez-Corona et al., 2016). These latter differences raise the question
of whether the TS Likers segment within the larger, self-declared po-
pulation of “craft beer drinkers,” is motivated by elements of craft beer
drinking that may not be associated with their typical novel and high
flavor impact qualities, their quality, authenticity or small, independent
sources.
Two initial hypotheses to explain the data from the TS Likers seg-
ment in this study are that: 1) these individuals are more drawn to the
“lifestyle” of craft beer drinking, including its associated activities and
behaviors (Murray & O'Neill, 2012; Thurnell-Read, 2016), or 2) they
believe that being identified as a “craft beer drinker” offers some higher
perceived social status than that afforded by being a “mainstream beer
drinker.” With regard to the first hypothesis, we found no major dif-
ferences between the preference clusters in the craft beer-associated
activities and behaviors itemized in our survey, except for the two
purchase- and use-related items noted in the previous section. As such,
our data do not support this first hypothesis, albeit we did not directly
observe any actual craft beer behaviors in this study. With regard to the
second hypothesis, i.e. that TS Likers may be seeking an association with
craft beer drinking because of a desire to project a presumed, higher
social status ascribed to craft beer drinking, there is some literature that
bears on this possibility. In their study on craft beer drinkers, Gómez-
Corona, Escalona-Buendía et al. (2017) found that these consumers
show a desire for distinction, i.e. not consuming what everyone else
does. Similarly, Santisi et al. (2018) have reported that the intention to
drink craft beers is often subject to peer pressure. Thomé, Pinho,
Fonseca, and Soares (2016) have ascribed the concepts of “luxury value
perception” and “uniqueness value” to products like premium beers,
because of their connotation of “exclusivity” and “rareness,” while the
possession of such luxury items has been linked to the communication
of high social status (Dawson & Cavell, 1987). Lastly, Rivaroli et al.
(2018) have directly associated craft beer drinking with a desire for
unique consumer products. However, our data on food and beverage
need for uniqueness (FBNFU), which shows no difference between the
TS Likers and CS Likers, fail to support this second hypothesis.
11
Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884
5.4.1. Two alternative hypotheses for the results
Two additional hypotheses can be put forth to explain the results
obtained in this study. First, It may well be that the two preference
clusters that we uncovered in this research are representative of craft
beer consumers who have had differential levels of exposure to novel
craft beer flavors and that this differential exposure mediates a transi-
tion of flavor preferences away from traditional-style flavors and to-
ward craft-style flavors. That is, it can be argued that beer consumers
prior to their first exposure to craft beers have a preference for tradi-
tional styles of beer and their corresponding low flavor profiles (TS
Likers). However, with increased exposure to the novel and higher
flavor profile of craft beers, these consumers develop a preference for
these higher flavor profile beers (CS Likers). In essence, what we may
have uncovered in this research is the existence of a transitional bi-
furcation of beer drinkers into two flavor preference segments that is a
natural consequence of repeated exposure to craft beers.
Evidence in support of the above hypothesis comes from both the
existing literature on flavor preference development and on the atti-
tudinal and behavioral data from the present study. It is well known
that exposure to a novel taste, smell, food or beverage will increase the
acceptance (liking) of it (and/or decrease the disliking for it) and that
repeated exposure further increases this shift in preference in both
animals and humans (Birch, McPhee, Shoba, Pirok, & Steinberg, 1987;
Cain & Johnson, 1978; Domjan, 1976; Nolden & Hayes, 2017; Pliner,
1982; Rozin & Schiller, 1980; Rozin & Vollmecke, 1986; Stevenson &
Yeomans, 1993; Torrance, 1958). Although this effect may result from
“mere” exposure, it is often due to associative or evaluative con-
ditioning, whereby the food/beverage is associated with other re-
warding consequences, e.g. metabolic, sensory, social or conceptual
(see Mela (2001) for a discussion of the role of mere exposure and
evaluative conditioning of food preferences). Such exposure effects are
the reason why humans come to prefer the innately aversive taste of hot
spices (Rozin, 1990), prefer lower levels of salt following a low-salt diet
(Bertino, Beauchamp, & Engelman, 1982), and come to readily con-
sume novel, risky and innately aversive foods/tastes (Pliner, Pelchat, &
Grabski, 1993). As such, repeated exposure to the novel flavors of craft
beers over time is likely to increase preference for these beer flavors
relative to traditional beer flavors.
In support of the above theoretical explanation, there is evidence in
the present data that the CS Likers had greater and/or longer exposure
to craft beers than the TS Likers. First, The TS Likers agreed significantly
less with the statements 1) “I seek out beers made by small, local, in-
dependent breweries,” i.e. craft beers, 2) “I like beers that are of high
quality and authenticity,” i.e. the elemental characteristics of craft
beers, and 3) “I love to experiment with different styles of craft beer,”
suggesting that consumers in the TS Likers segment are less likely to
expose themselves to the novel flavors of different craft beers. More
directly, as it relates to exposure and the amount/frequency of craft
beers consumed, the TS Likers agreed significantly less with the beha-
vioral statements that “I purchase and refill flagons of beer at local
breweries” and “I have a beer tap in my house.” Lastly, as it relates
directly to the hypothesis that exposure to craft beer alters the per-
ceptual/affective appreciation of these beers, the CS Likers agreed sig-
nificantly more with the statement that “Craft beer has changed my
perception of what constitutes high quality beer.”
Thus, from both a theoretical and empirical standpoint, the hy-
pothesis that the preference segments uncovered in this research are a
reflection of differences in exposure (length and frequency) to craft
beers is a strong possibility. Unfortunately, we did not ask directly
about either the frequency of craft beer drinking or the length of time
that they had been drinking craft beers. However, it is of note that the
age demographic of the CS Likers segment was older than that of the TS
Likers.
A second alternative hypothesis that might be used to explain the
differences in the two preference segments is related to the differences
in the “complexity” of the test stimuli and the potential for the two
S.R. Jaeger, et al.
preference segments to have different “optimal levels of stimulus
arousal,” a construct integral to Berlyne’s motivational theory of aes-
thetic appreciation (Berlyne, 1960, 1970). The latter theory proposes
that all stimuli have a specific arousal potential, i.e. an inherent prop-
erty to garner attention and induce drive (choice, preference, move-
ment) toward the stimulus. This arousal potential is related to the
sensory characteristics of the stimulus, its ability to meet biological
needs, and its collative properties, e.g. familiarity, novelty and com-
plexity (see Giacalone, Duerlund, Bøegh-Petersen, Bredie, & Frøst,
2014, for a discussion of these three collative properties and their ap-
plication and specific relevance to beer). Berlyne (1970) proposed that
the hedonic response to any stimulus is related to the arousal potential
of the stimulus through an inverted U function, i.e. hedonic response is
low at low arousal levels, increases to an optimal (asymptotic) level and
then decreases with further increases in arousal potential. However, the
level of optimal arousal for any one individual is both time dependent
and specific to that individual’s past experiences (Berlyne, 1974).
Although stimulus complexity is difficult to define, it is often con-
sidered the most important collative property influencing the arousal
potential of the stimulus (Dember & Earl, 1957). Complexity has been
operationalized in a number of food studies through the number of
components present in a particular food/beverage, e.g. the number of
odors in a mixture (Laska & Hudson, 1992; Jackson, 2016), the number
of flavors or additives in a product (Porcherot & Issanchou, 1998; Lévy,
MacRae, & Köster, 2006), the number of spices added (Olabi et al.,
2015) or the number/nature of ingredients in cocktail drinks (Pierguidi,
Spinelli, Dinnella, Prescott, & Monteleone, 2019). In the case of wine,
beer and other alcoholic drinks, complexity has been associated with
the alcohol content of the drink, the number of volatiles, the number of
flavor ingredients, and even the degree to which a wine’s flavor “cannot
be articulated” (Meillon et al., 2010; Melcher & Schooler, 1996; Parr,
Mouret, Blackmore, Pelquest-Hunt, & Urdapilleta, 2011; Giacalone
et al., 2014; Wang & Spence, 2018; Pierguidi et al., 2019).[See Palczak,
Blumenthal, Rogeaux, and Delarue (2019) for a recent review of sen-
sory complexity and its role on hedonic response to foods and bev-
erages].
As far as the present study is concerned, the HF beers preferred by
the CS Likers segment were craft beers with novel and complex flavors
(higher complexity stimuli), while the LF beers preferred by the TS
Likers segment were all traditional beers with low flavor profiles (lower
complexity stimuli). This is clearly evidenced in the holistic-conceptual
data (Fig. 1c and 1d), where it is seen that, for both preference seg-
ments, all of the LF beers were characterized as being “simple” beers
while all of the HF beers were characterized as “complex beers.” As
such, it is possible that the CS Likers segment are beer consumers who
have a higher optimal level of preferred complexity than the TS Likers.
Unfortunately, there are no data from the present study that can be
brought to bear on this possibility. That said, Berlyne (1974) and
Dember and Earl (1957) reported that an individual’s optimal level of
complexity can be altered by exposure to stimuli that are slightly more
complex than their optimal level. This would mean that with repeated
exposure to increasingly more novel and complex beer flavors, such as
those common to craft beers, TS Likers, who may normally have a low
level of optimal arousal for beers, might experience a shift in their
optimal level of complexity toward more novel and complex craft beer
flavors; an outcome consistent with both the previously outlined pre-
dictions of mere exposure and our previously stated proposition that the
TS Likers may be craft beer drinkers in transition from a preference for
more simply-flavored traditional beers to a preference for the more
complex flavors of craft beer. Further to this point is the finding by
Giacalone et al. (2014) that increasing consumer knowledge about
beers reduces their perceived complexity, a finding consistent with the
idea that, as TS Likers’ craft beer knowledge increases, the perceived
complexity of some craft beer flavor profiles may be reduced, making
them more consistent with what may be the lower levels of “optimal”
complexity for these consumers and, thereby, more acceptable.
12
Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884
Based on the present research and the literature discussed above, it
would be interesting to follow a cohort of beer drinkers from when they
first enter the craft beer market and, over time, examine their exposure
to, preferences for, and perceived complexity of CS vs. TS beers, as well
as any accompanying increases in their knowledge about craft beers.
Based on the present research we would predict that at the time of entry
to the market, beer drinkers would show the attitudinal and behavioral
characteristics of the TS Likers segment observed in this research.
However, as time in the craft beer market and exposure to different
styles of craft beer increases, the perceptual, attitudinal and behavioral
characteristics of these beer drinkers would be predicted to shift to be
more like those of the CS Likers segment. This shift in beer preferences
with exposure would not be unlike what is seen in the development of
other food and beverage preferences and would provide additional in-
sights into the factors influencing such flavor preference development.
5.5. Limitations and other suggestions for future research
In addition to tracking exposure and consumption of craft beers in a
longitudinal study that includes monitoring of the perceptions, atti-
tudes, liking, and knowledge of declared craft beer drinkers, it would
also be interesting to include women in future studies. Males were the
focus of the present research, because they are more likely to drink craft
beer than women (Gómez-Corona et al., 2016; Jaeger et al., 2017;
Malone & Lusk, 2018; Murray & O'Neill, 2012). However, in light of the
observed preference segments, it would be interesting to assess whether
women who are self-declared craft beer drinkers would place more
frequently into the TS Likers segment than the CS Likers segment, per-
haps reflecting a desire for the craft beer drinker “lifestyle” but re-
taining a preference for beers that are lighter in flavor. If such new
research includes both men and women, it could provide validation of
the current results and extend their generalizability, both of which are
needed considering the modest sample size (n = 120).
In light of the wide range of social and conceptual associations that
accompany craft beers and craft beer drinking (see Introduction), it
would be worthwhile to further examine these underlying social and
conceptual associations, in order to better understand the motivational
and reward elements that drive craft beer drinking. A further suggestion
would be to explore how other extrinsic elements of both craft-style and
traditional-style beers, e.g. information imparted by product packaging
and labels (e.g., brand, quality information, geographic origin) affect
sensory perceptions, liking, and consumption of them and whether the
preference segments observed here respond differently to these cues,
considering that they differed in many aspects of their conceptual,
cognitive, emotional and situational responses to the tasted beers.
6. Conclusions and implications
The present research was designed around the expectation that,
among declared craft beer drinkers, preference clusters would emerge
for those consumers who prefer craft-style beers that have more com-
plex and bolder flavors and those who prefer traditional-style beers that
are lighter flavored. Among a group of male New Zealand consumers,
such segments were established – CS Likers and TS Likers. The two
segments did not differ in their sensory characterization of craft-style
(CS) and traditional-style (TS) beers, and neither did they differ greatly
in their holistic and conceptual perceptions of these beer types. Greater
differences were observed in the cognitive, emotional and situational
use responses of these two preference segments for the beers examined
in this study (3 HF and 3 LF beers), but these differences corresponded
to what would be expected from their observed flavor preferences (e.g.,
CS Likers characterize HF beers as those “they typically drink,” “that
like-minded drinkers drink,” for use “when they want more than one”
and that evoke “positive emotions,” while TS Likers ascribe these same
characteristics to LF beers). From an attitudinal and behavioral or “craft
beer lifestyle” perspective, the two preference segments differed in
S.R. Jaeger, et al.
attitudes and behaviors that reflect differences in the extent of their use
and exposure to craft beers. These differences lead to the hypothesis
that the two flavor segments represent shifting flavor preferences
among declared craft beer drinkers as a function of the frequency and/
or length of their exposure to the complex flavors and varieties of craft
beers. Further research into the role of exposure to craft beers and the
underlying social and conceptual reward characteristics of craft beer
and craft beer drinking is needed before a full accounting of the basis
for the observed flavor segments is possible.
With regard to implications of the research, craft brewers should
target both of the flavor preference segments found in this research in
order to ensure full market coverage. This might be achieved by en-
suring certain style and flavor offerings in craft beers that align with
more traditional beer flavor profiles. For traditional brewers, the im-
plication is that opportunities may still exist among declared craft beer
drinkers for offerings that have traditional flavor profiles, but that ca-
pitalize on the extrinsic aspects of craft beers and the motivational
elements of craft beer drinking.
Funding
Financial support was received from two sources: 1) The New
Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation & Employment (contract
C11X1306), and 2) The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food
Research Limited (PFR).
CRediT authorship statement
Sara R. Jaeger: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Thierry Worch: Formal
analysis. Tracey Phelps: Resources, Investigation. David Jin:
Resources, Investigation, Visualization. Armand V. Cardello:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - re-
view & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Sensory and Consumer Science staff from PFR are thanked for help
in collection of consumer data. Dave Anderson, also from PFR, is
thanked for performing the chemical analyses on beer samples.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103884.
References
Acitelli, T., & Magee, T. (2017). Audacity of hops: The history of America’s craft beer re-
volution. Chicago Review Press.
Aquilani, B., Laureti, T., Poponi, S., & Secondi, L. (2015). Beer choice and consumption
determinants when craft beers are tasted: An exploratory study of consumer pre-
ferences. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 214–224.
Ares, G., & Jaeger, S. R. (2015). Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions with consumers in
practice: Experimental considerations and impact on outcome. In J. Delarue, J. B.
Lawlor, & M. Rogeaux (Eds.). Rapid sensory profiling techniques (pp. 227–245).
Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
Ares, G., Reis, F., Oliveira, D., Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., et al. (2015).
Recommendations for use of balanced presentation order of terms in CATA questions.
Food Quality and Preference, 46, 137–141.
Bell, R., & Marshall, D. W. (2003). The construct of food involvement in behavioral re-
search: Scale development and validation. Appetite, 40(3), 235–244.
Bertino, M., Beauchamp, G. K., & Engelman, K. (1982). Long-term reduction in dietary
13
Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884
sodium alters the taste of salt. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 36(6),
1134–1144.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics,
8(5), 279–286.
Berlyne, D. E. (1974). The new experimental aesthetics. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.). Studies in
the new experimental aesthetics (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publication
Services.
Birch, L. L., McPhee, L., Shoba, B., Pirok, E., & Steinberg, L. (1987). What kind of ex-
posure reduces children’s food neophobia?: Looking vs. tasting. Appetite, 9(3),
171–178.
Brewers Association. (2019a). Retrieved from https://www.brewersassociation.org/
statistics/national-beer-sales-production-data/, accessed 4 April 2019.
Brewers Association. (2019b). Retrieved from https://www.brewersassociation.org/
insights/beer-styles-by-state/, accessed 4 April 2019.
Cain, W. S., & Johnson, F., Jr (1978). Lability of odor pleasantness: Influence of mere
exposure. Perception, 7(4), 459–465.
Cardello, A. V., Chheang, S. L., Hedderley, D. I., Guo, L. F., Hunter, D. C., & Jaeger, S. R.
(2019). Toward a new scale to measure consumers’ “need for uniqueness” in foods
and beverages: The 31-item FBNFU scale. Food Quality and Preference, 72, 159–171.
Cardello, A. V., Pineau, B., Paisley, A. G., Roigard, C. M., Chheang, S. L., Guo, L. F., et al.
(2016). Cognitive and emotional differentiators for beer: An exploratory study fo-
cusing on “uniqueness”. Food Quality and Preference, 54, 23–38.
Clemons, E. K., Gao, G. G., & Hitt, L. M. (2006). When online reviews meet hy-
perdifferentiation: A study of the craft beer industry. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 23(2), 149–171.
Dawson, S., & Cavell, J. (1987). Status recognition in the 1980s: Invidious distinction
revisited. ACR North American Advances, 14, 487–491.
Dember, W. N., & Earl, R. W. (1957). Analysis of exploratory, manipulatory, and curiosity
behaviors. Psychological Review, 64(2), 91.
Domjan, M. (1976). Determinants of the enhancement of flavored-water intake by prior
exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2(1), 17–27.
Donadini, G., & Porretta, S. (2017). Uncovering patterns of consumers' interest for beer: A
case study with craft beers. Food Research International, 91, 183–198.
Elzinga, K. G., Tremblay, C. H., & Tremblay, V. J. (2015). Craft beer in the United States:
History, numbers, and geography. Journal of Wine Economics, 10(3), 242–274.
Euromonitor International. (2016). Beer in Mexico. Retrieved from Euromonitor Passport
database Euromonitor International, London, U.K.
Giacalone, D., Duerlund, M., Bøegh-Petersen, J., Bredie, W. L., & Frøst, M. B. (2014).
Stimulus collative properties and consumers’ flavor preferences. Appetite, 77, 20–30.
Gómez-Corona, C., Chollet, S., Escalona-Buendía, H. B., & Valentin, D. (2017). Measuring
the drinking experience of beer in real context situations. The impact of affects,
senses, and cognition. Food Quality and Preference, 60, 113–122.
Gómez-Corona, C., Escalona-Buendía, H. B., Chollet, S., & Valentin, D. (2017). The
building blocks of drinking experience across men and women: A case study with
craft and industrial beers. Appetite, 116, 345–356.
Gómez-Corona, C., Escalona-Buendía, H. B., García, M., Chollet, S., & Valentin, D. (2016).
Craft vs. industrial: Habits, attitudes and motivations towards beer consumption in
Mexico. Appetite, 96, 358–367.
Guinard, J. X., Uotani, B., Mazzucchelli, R., Taguchi, A., Masuoka, S., & Fujino, S. (2000).
Consumer testing of commercial lager beers in blind versus informed conditions:
Relation with descriptive analysis and expert quality ratings. Journal of the Institute of
Brewing, 106(1), 11–20.
Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices.
Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 1–16.
Howard, P. H. (2014). Too big to ale? Globalization and consolidation in the beer in-
dustry. In M. Patterson, & N. Hoalst-Pullen (Eds.). The geography of beer (pp. 155–
165). Netherlands: Springer.
Jackson, R. S. (2016). Wine tasting: A professional handbook. New York: Academic Press.
Jaeger, S. R., Cardello, A. V., Chheang, S. L., Beresford, M. K., Hedderley, D. I., & Pineau,
B. (2017). Holistic and consumer-centric assessment of beer: A multi-measurement
approach. Food Research International, 99, 287–297.
Jaeger, S. R., Hunter, D. C., Vidal, L., Chheang, S. L., Ares, G., & Harker, F. R. (2019).
Sensory product characterization by consumers using check-all-that-apply questions:
Investigations linked to term development using kiwifruit as a case study. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 34(3), e12490.
Jaeger, S. R., Xia, Y., Le Blond, M., Beresford, M. K., Hedderley, D. I., & Cardello, A. V.
(2019). Supplementing hedonic and sensory consumer research on beer with cogni-
tive and emotional measures, and additional insights via consumer segmentation.
Food Quality and Preference, 73, 117–134.
Kleban, J., & Nickerson, I. (2012). To brew, or not to brew-That is the question: An
analysis of competitive forces in the craft brew industry. Journal of the International
Academy for Case Studies, 18(3), 59–146.
Laska, M., & Hudson, R. (1992). Ability to discriminate between related odor mixtures.
Chemical Senses, 17(4), 403–415.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J.-N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal
of Marketing Research, 22(1), 41–53.
Lesschaeve, I., & Bruwer, J. (2010). The importance of consumer involvement and im-
plications for new product development. In S. R. Jaeger, & H. MacFie (Eds.).
Consumer-driven innovation in food and personal care products (pp. 386–423). Elsevier.
Lévy, C. M., MacRae, A., & Köster, E. P. (2006). Perceived stimulus complexity and food
preference development. Acta Psychologica, 123(3), 394–413.
Malone, T., & Lusk, J. L. (2018). If you brew it, who will come? Market segments in the US
beer market. Agribusiness, 34(2), 204–221.
Manoukian, E. B. (1986). Mathematical nonparametric statistics. New York: Gordon &
Breach.
S.R. Jaeger, et al.
Medoro, C., Cianciabella, M., Camilli, F., Magli, M., Gatti, E., & Predieri, S. (2016).
Sensory profile of italian craft beers, beer taster expert versus sensory methods: A
comparative study. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 7(6), 454–465.
Mela, D. J. (2001). Development and acquisition of food likes. In L. J. Frewer, E. Risvik, &
H. Schifferstein (Eds.). Food, people and society (pp. 9–21). Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer.
Meillon, S., Viala, D., Medel, M., Urbano, C., Guillot, G., & Schlich, P. (2010). Impact of
partial alcohol reduction in Syrah wine on perceived complexity and temporality of
sensations and link with preference. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 732–740.
Melcher, J. M., & Schooler, J. W. (1996). The misremembrance of wines past: Verbal and
perceptual expertise differentially mediate verbal overshadowing of taste memory.
Journal of Memory and Language, 35(2), 231–245.
Meyners, M., Castura, J. C., & Carr, B. T. (2013). Existing and new approaches for the
analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 309–319.
Microbirrifici.org. (2019). Italian Beer Report 2018: Italian beer market, craftbeer and
breweries, 23 Jan 2019. Retrieved from https://theitaliancraftbeer.wordpress.com/
2019/01/23/italy-beer-report-2018-italian-beer-market-craft-beer-and-breweries-in-
numbers/, accessed 18 April 2019.
Mittal, B., & Lee, M.-S. (1989). A causal model of consumer involvement. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 10(3), 363–389.
Murray, D. W., & O'Neill, M. A. (2012). Craft beer: Penetrating a niche market. British
Food Journal, 114(7), 899–909.
Neilsen Scantrack. (2018). Reported in G. Smith, The drink of a generation: craft beer on
the rise. Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/au/en/insights/article/2018/the-
drink-of-a-generation-craft-beer-on-the-rise/, accessed 18 April 2019.
Newshub. (2018). Investment in hop grower underlines growing craft beer market. 8 May
2018. Retrieved from https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/rural/2018/08/
investment-in-hop-grower-underlines-growing-craft-beer-market.html, accessed 18
April 2019.
Nolden, A. A., & Hayes, J. E. (2017). Perceptual and affective responses to sampled
capsaicin differ by reported intake. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 26–34.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Okojie, I., Ho, P., & Li, Z. (2019). Measuring perceived hotness and pain stimulus toler-
ance towards capsaicin with the Many-Facet Rasch model. Poster presentation at
the13th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Edinburgh, UK, 28 Jul–01 Aug 2019.
Olabi, A., Neuhaus, T., Bustos, R., Cook-Camacho, M., Corvi, T., & Abdouni, L. (2015). An
investigation of flavor complexity and food neophobia. Food Quality and Preference,
42, 123–129.
Parr, W. V., Mouret, M., Blackmore, S., Pelquest-Hunt, T., & Urdapilleta, I. (2011).
Representation of complexity in wine: Influence of expertise. Food Quality and
Preference, 22(7), 647–660.
Palczak, J., Blumenthal, D., Rogeaux, M., & Delarue, J. (2019). Sensory complexity and its
influence on hedonic responses: A systematic review of applications in food and
beverages. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 66–75.
14
Food Quality and Preference 82 (2020) 103884
Peryam, D. R., & Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring food pre-
ferences. Food Technology, 11, 9–14.
Pierguidi, L., Spinelli, S., Dinnella, C., Prescott, J., & Monteleone, E. (2019). Individual
differences in perceived complexity are associated with different affective responses
to alcoholic cocktails. Food Quality and Preference, 76, 47–59.
Pliner, P. (1982). The effects of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite,
3(3), 283–290.
Pliner, P., Pelchat, M., & Grabski, M. (1993). Reduction of neophobia in humans by ex-
posure to novel foods. Appetite, 20(2), 111–123.
Porcherot, C., & Issanchou, S. (1998). Dynamics of liking for flavoured crackers: Test of
predictive value of a boredom test. Food Quality and Preference, 9(1–2), 21–29.
R Core Team. (2019). A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2012. URL https://www.R-project.
org.
Rivaroli, S., Hingley, M. K., & Spadoni, R. (2018). The motivation behind drinking craft
beer in Italian brew pubs: A case study. Economia Agro-Alimentare, 20(3), 425–443.
Rozin, P. (1990). Acquisition of stable food preferences. Nutrition Reviews, 48(2),
106–113.
Rozin, P., & Schiller, D. (1980). The nature and acquisition of a preference for chili pepper
by humans. Motivation and Emotion, 4(1), 77–101.
Rozin, P., & Vollmecke, T. A. (1986). Food likes and dislikes. Annual Review of Nutrition,
6(1), 433–456.
Santisi, G., Morando, M., & Sciacca, A. (2018). Craft beer and intensity of purchase: A
psychological analysis of consumer intentions. Quality-Access to Success, 19(S1),
451–457.
Statista. (2019). Consumer Goods & FMCG. Alcoholic Beverages. Craft beer output in
China 2012–2020. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/980445/
china-craft-beer-poduction-volume/, accessed 18 April 2019.
Stevenson, R. J., & Yeomans, M. R. (1993). Differences in ratings of intensity and plea-
santness for the capsaicin burn between chili likers and non-likers; implications for
liking development. Chemical Senses, 18(5), 471–482.
Thomé, K. M., Pinho, G.d. M., Fonseca, D. P., & Soares, A. B. P. (2016). Consumers’ luxury
value perception in the Brazilian premium beer market. International Journal of Wine
Business Research, 28(4), 369–386.
Thurnell-Read, T. (2016). ‘Real ale’ enthusiasts, serious leisure and the costs of getting
‘too serious’ about beer. Leisure Sciences, 38(1), 68–84.
Torrance, E. P. (1958). Sensitization versus adaptation in preparation for emergencies:
Prior experience with an emergency ration and its acceptability in a stimulated
survival situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42(1), 63–67.
Wang, Q. J., & Spence, C. (2018). Wine complexity: An empirical investigation. Food
Quality and Preference, 68, 238–244.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(3), 341–352.