Paired preference tests using placebo pairs and different response options for chips, orange juices and cookies

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 417-438

  Kim, Hae Sun ^a   Lee, Hye Seong ^a   O'Mahony, Michael ^b   Kim, Kwang Ok ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SOLANUM TUBEROSUM; THEOBROMA CACAO;

EID: 44649159598     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2008.00163.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. ALFARO-RODRIGUEZ, H., O'MAHONY, M. ANGULO, O. 2005. Paired preference tests: d′ values from Mexican consumers with various response options. J. Sensory Studies 20, 275 281.
2. ALFARO-RODRIGUEZ, H., ANGULO, O. O'MAHONY, M. 2007. Be your own placebo: A double paired preference test approach for establishing expected frequencies. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 353 361.
3. ANGULO, O. O'MAHONY, M. 2005. The paired preference test and the "no preference" option: Was Odesky correct? Food Qual. Prefer. 16, 425 434.
4. CHAPMAN, K.W. LAWLESS, H.T. 2005. Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. J. Sensory Studies 20, 454 468.
5. CHAPMAN, K.W., GRACE-MARTIN, K. LAWLESS, H.T. 2006. Expectations and stability of preference choice. J. Sensory Studies 21, 441 455.
6. DRAPER, N.R., HUNTER, W.G. TIERNEY, D.E. 1969. Which product is better? Technometrics 11, 309 320.
7. ENNIS, D.M. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44, 114 118.
8. ENNIS, D.M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353 370.
9. ENNIS, D.M. Institute for Perception, Richmond, VA. Personal communication, 2007.
10. FALK, S.N., HENRICKSON, R.L. MORRISON, R.D. 1975. Effect of boning beef carcasses prior to chilling on meat tenderness. J. Food Sci. 40, 1075 1079.
11. FOLEY, M., WILLIAMS, A., BADE, J., LANCASTER, B., POPPER, R. CARR, B.T. 2003. Effect of preference-question format with and without sample differences. Abstracts of the 5th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Abstract #043, July 2003, Boston, MA.
12. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Senses Flav. 4, 355 358.
13. GREEN, D.M. SWETS, J.A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
14. GRIDGEMAN, N.T. 1959. Pair comparison, with and without ties. Biometrics 15, 382 388.
15. JEON, S.Y., O'MAHONY, M. KIM, K.O. 2004. A comparison of category and line scales under various experimental protocols. J. Sensory Studies 19, 49 66.
16. LAWLESS, H.T. HEYMANN, H. 1998. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.
17. LEE, H.-S. O'MAHONY, M. 2004. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 13, 841 847.
18. LEE, H.-S., van HOUT, D., HAUTUS, M. O'MAHONY, M. 2007. Can the same-different test use a β-criterion as well as a τ-criterion? Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 605 613.
19. MACMILLAN, N.A. CREELMAN, C.D. 2005. Detection Theory: A User's Guide, 2nd Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
20. MARCHISANO, C., LIM, J., CHO, H.S., SUH, D.S., JEON, S.Y., KIM, K.O. O'MAHONY, M. 2003. Consumers report preference when they should not: A cross-cultural study. J. Sensory Studies 18, 487 516.
21. ODESKY, S.H. 1967. Handling the neutral vote in paired comparison product testing. J. Mark. Res. 4, 199 201.
22. O'MAHONY, M. ROUSSEAU, B. 2002. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 157 164.
23. O'MAHONY, M., MASUOKA, S. ISHII, R. 1994. A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. J. Sensory Studies 9, 247 272.
24. PARK, J.Y., JEON, S.Y., O'MAHONY, M. KIM, K.O. 2004. Induction of scaling errors. J. Sensory Studies 19, 261 271.
25. PARK, J.Y., O'MAHONY, M. KIM, K.O. 2007 Different-stimulus" scaling errors; effects of scale length. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 362 368.
26. RESURRECCION, A.V.A. 1998. Consumer Sensory Testing for Product Development, Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, MD.
27. ROSAS-NEXTICAPA, M., ANGULO, O. O'MAHONY, M. 2005. How well does the 9-point scale predict purchase frequency? J. Sensory Studies 20, 313 331.
28. ROUSSEAU, B. 2001. The β-strategy: An alternative and powerful cognitive strategy when performing sensory discrimination tests. J. Sensory Studies 16, 301 318.
29. SIMONE, M. PANGBORN, R.M. 1957. Consumer acceptance methodology; one vs two samples. Food Technol. 11, 25 29.
30. STONE, H. SIDEL, J.L. 1992. Sensory Evaluation Practices, Academic Press, San Francisco, CA.
31. THURSTONE, L.L. 1927a. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273 286.
32. THURSTONE, L.L. 1927b. Psychophysical analysis. Am. J. Psychol. 38, 368 389.
33. ULLMANN-MARGALIT, E. MORGENBESSER, S. 1977. Picking and choosing. Soc. Res. 44, 757 785.
34. WATERMAN, A., BLADES, M. SPENCER, C. 2001. Is a jumper angrier than a tree? Psychologist 14, 474 477.
35. WILKE, K.D., COCHRANE, C.-Y.C. CHAMBERS, E. IV. 2006. Multiple preference tests can provide more information on consumer preferences. J. Sensory Studies 21, 612 625.