Görselliğin ve Aşinalığın Tüketime Etkisi: Yenilebilir Yumurtalar Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Elif Esma Karaman Taşkesenligil

doi:10.24925/turjaf.v14i8.2380-2393.8850

Authors

Elif Esma Karaman Taşkesenligil Artvin Çoruh Üniversitesi, Turizm Fakültesi, Gastronomi ve Mutfak Sanatları Bölümü, 08000, Artvin, Türkiye https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5735-2504

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v14i8.2380-2393.8850

Keywords:

Edible Eggs, Familiarity , Visual Aesthetics , Consumer Behavior, Nutritional value

Abstract

This study examines the impact of familiarity, visual aesthetics, and nutritional value information on consumption trends in the context of edible eggs. Based on the assumption that consumer acceptance is shaped by nutritional value, visual perception and cognitive expectations, the study investigated how consumption trends towards eggs from different animal species change in response to visual presentation and nutritional information. In the study, a two-stage data collection process was applied to the participants. A written data collection method was preferred, and the same stimuli and the same question structure were presented to all participants in a standardised manner, thereby seeking to enhance the comparability of participant responses. In the first stage, information on the nutritional value of eggs was provided; in the second stage, the same participants were shown visual stimuli and their assessments were collected again. The data obtained were analyzed using content analysis. The findings show that visual presentation increases initial interest by triggering curiosity, novelty seeking, and the perception of gastronomic diversity; however, a lack of cultural familiarity and habits caused some participants to maintain a hesitant attitude. Nutritional information creates a stronger and more justified tendency for acceptance based on rational grounds of health and nutritional value. While visual aesthetics are effective in the initial stages of attention and curiosity, nutritional information stands out as a factor supporting the permanence of acceptance. The study reveals that visual appeal, cognitive nutritional information, and familiarity factors should be considered together in the acceptance of edible alternative egg types.

References

Aldridge, V., Dovey, T.M., Halford, J.C.G. (2009). The role of familiarity in dietary development. Appetite, 52(3), 705–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2008.11.001

Arthur, J., (2017). Duck Eggs. In P. Y. Hester (Ed.), Egg innovations and strategies for improvements (pp. 23–32). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12 8011515.00002-1.

Arthur, J., & Bejaei, M. (2017). Quail eggs. In P. Y. Hester (Ed.), Egg innovations and strategies for improvements (pp. 13–22). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801151-5.00002-1

Baltacı, A. (2019). Nitel araştırma süreci: Nitel bir araştırma nasıl yapılır? Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 5(2), 368–388. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.598299

Baptista, I., Valentin, D., Saldaña, E., & Behrens, J. (2021). Effects of packaging color on expected flavor, texture and liking of chocolate in Brazil and France. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 24, 100340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100340

Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900302

Chen, P. J., & Antonelli, M. (2020). Conceptual models of food choice: influential factors related to foods, individual differences, and society. Foods, 9(12), 1898. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121898

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications.

Creusen, M. E., & Schoormans, J. P. (2005). The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00103.x

Çınar, Ç., Karinen, A. K., & Tybur, J. M. (2021). The multidimensional nature of food neophobia. Appetite, 162, 105177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105177

Fidan, Y., & Taşçı, F. (2024). Suyun incisi: Havyar. Manas Journal of Agriculture, Veterinary and Life Sciences, 14(2), 247–267. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mjavl.

FitNigerian. (2025). Guinea Fowl Egg (raw) Nutrition Facts [Web sayfası]. FitNigerian. https://www.fitnigerian.com/nutrition-facts/guinea-fowl-egg-raw/.

Global Lokal, (2025). Emu Egg. https://thegloballocalgourmet.com/ingredients-glossary/meat-poultry/emu-egg/. (Erişim Tarihi: 23.09.2025).

Global Lokal, (2025). Pheasant Egg. https://thegloballocalgourmet.com/ingredients-glossary/meat-poultry/pheasant-egg/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. (Erişim Tarihi: 23.09.2025).

Günhan, Ş., & Kırıkçı, K. (2017). Effects of different storage time on hatching results and some egg quality characteristics of rock partridge (A. graeca). Poultry Science, 96(6), 1628–1634. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pew443

Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia. Direktorat Jenderal Kesehatan Masyarakat. Direktorat Gizi Masyarakat. (2018). Tabel komposisi pangan Indonesia 2017 (613.2 Ind). Jakarta: Kementerian Kesehatan RI. ISBN 978-602-416-407-2. https://repository.stikespersadanabire.ac.id/assets/upload/files/docs_1634523137.pdf.

Kokoszyski, D. (2017). Egg Innovations and Strategies for Improvements. (Edt, Patricia Y. Hester). Guinea Fowl, Goose, Turkey, Ostrich, and Emu Egg. (pp. 33-43). Nikki Levy Publisher. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800879-9.00004-4.

Köster, E. P. (2009). Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.002

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781.

Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev. Ed.). Nobel Yayıncılık.

Neuendorf, K. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071802878.

Nørgaard Olesen, S., & Giacalone, D. (2018). The influence of packaging on consumers’ quality perception of carrots. Journal of Sensory Studies, 33(1), e12310. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12310.

Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.

Pinweha, P., Klomtun, M., Chaeychomsri, S., Chaeychomsri, W., & Siruntawineti, J. (2021). Chemical composition of Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis) egg yolk. Proceedings of the World Crocodile Conference – Sri Lanka, 22nd Working Meeting of the IUCN – SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, 20–23 May 2013, Negombo, Sri Lanka, 264–266.

Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2015). Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food quality and Preference, 40, 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.013

Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6663(92)90014-W

Rozin, P. (2006). The integration of biological, social, cultural and psychological influences on food choice. In The psychology of food choice (pp. 19-39). Wallingford UK: Cabi.

Roudsari, A. H., Vedadhir, A., Amiri, P., Kalantari, N., Omidvar, N., Eini-Zinab, H., & Sadati, S. M. H. (2017). Psycho-socio-cultural determinants of food choice: a qualitative study on adults in social and cultural context of Iran. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry, 12(4), 241. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5816913/

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description?. Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334-340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4%3C334::AID-NUR9%3E3.0.CO;2-G

Sobal, J., & Bisogni, C. A. (2009). Constructing food choice decisions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38(suppl_1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9124-5

Solomon, M. R. (2020). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being (13th ed.). Pearson Education.

Spence, C. (2015a). On the psychological impact of food colour. Flavour, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13411-015-0031-3

Spence, C. (2015b). Multisensory flavor perception. Cell, 161(1), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.007

Tan, K. C. (2007). Turtle egg consumption and conservation in Malaysia: A study of local beliefs and practices in Terengganu, Malaysia (Master’s thesis, Lund University, Sweden). Lund University. https://www.lumes.lu.se/sites/lumes.lu.se/files/tan_kien_chun.pdf.

Tuorila, H., Lähteenmäki, L., Pohjalainen, L., & Lotti, L. (2001). Food neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference, 12(1), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00025-2.

Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1–27. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0025848

Zende, R. J., Chavhan, D. M., Rai, A. K., Vaidya, V. M., & Save, H. V. (2022). Microbiological and nutritional quality of freshly laid emu eggs collected from different farms located in thane district of maharashtra thane district of Maharashtra. Journal of Meat Science, 14(1), 11 12. https://www.journals.acspublisher.com/index.php/jms/article/view/3289.