It has been shown that the identification of many foods including vegetables based on flavour cues is often difficult. The effect of providing texture cues in addition to flavour cues on the identification of foods and the effect of providing taste cues only on the identification of foods have not been studied. The aim of this study was to assess the role of smell, taste, flavour and texture cues in the identification of ten vegetables commonly consumed in The Netherlands (broccoli, cauliflower, French bean, leek, bell pepper, carrot, cucumber, iceberg lettuce, onion and tomato). Subjects (n ¼ 194) were randomly assigned to one smell (orthonasal), flavour (taste and smell) and flavour-texture (taste, smell and texture). Blindfolded subjects were asked to identify the vegetable from a list of 24 vegetables. Identification was the highest in the flavour-texture condition (87.5%). Identification was significantly lower in the flavour condition (62.8%). Identification was the lowest when only taste cues (38.3%) or only smell cues (39.4%) were provided. For four raw vegetables (carrot, cucumber, onion and tomato) providing texture cues in addition to flavour cues did not significantly change identification suggesting that flavour cues were sufficient to identify these vegetables. Identification frequency increased for all vegetables when perceived intensity of the smell, taste or flavour cue increased. We conclude that providing flavour cues (taste and smell) increases identification compared to only taste or only smell cues, combined flavour and texture cues are needed for the identification of many vegetables commonly consumed in The Netherlands.
This text is structured as follows. Section 1 concerns the background to this public lecture: the fact that social participation is becoming increasingly important in our society. This is evident, for example, from the way we are evolving from a protective welfare state into an activational, participative society. This development has consequences for the social sector and therefore also for the professionals who work in it. Social work professionals are not necessarily expected to identify or solve participation problems; they are seen as intermediaries who enable citizens to take responsibility themselves. Social work professionals are therefore expected to provide the individual applicant with less direct support and to focus more on strengthening the social networks of people and the social contexts in which they find themselves. Section 2 connects sections 1 and 3, but may also be read independently. It is about the fact that social work professionals are not yet in the habit of providing systematic insight into the results of their actions, while policy makers, for example, are increasingly looking to them precisely for this. First of all, I set out the reasons why it is so important to make the products of their interventions more visible, not only to policy makers, but also to social work professionals themselves and to the customers/citizens who depend on them. Secondly, I set out how the results of social interventions can be made more visible than they are at present; and what research can contribute. In this, I advocate a change in thinking: from thinking in terms of the evidence to thinking in terms of the evident. This argument forms the basis of the type of research that is being taken up from within the research group. In section 3, I describe a number of research projects that will be conducted during my tenure. I also set out the main proposition of this address, which states that social work professionals should do more with the knowledge that peoples behaviour is determined to a significant degree by contexts. In particular, social contexts could play a bigger role in promoting citizen participation. At present, social work professionals normally intervene directly in peoples behaviour, such as with therapies for combating problem behaviour. Interventions in a broader, social, context are rare. Why is this? And couldnt citizen participation be more effectively promoted by these means than through direct behavioural interventions? I put forward four propositions in this regard, and explain each of them in reference to one of the current research projects within the research group. With this, in combination with the general outlines of the research presented in section 2, I hope to provide a clear and inspiring overview of the research that will be carried out within the research group in the coming years. Finally, in section 4, I will discuss the significance of the research group to the faculty of Society and Law at Hogeschool Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, and to parties outside of Hogeschool Utrecht University of Applied Sciences.
