The 9-point hedonic scale: Are words and numbers compatible?

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 21, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1008-1015

  Nicolas, Laura ^a   Marquilly, Coline ^a   O'Mahony, Michael ^b  

^a AGROPARISTECH   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

9 point hedonic scale; Absolute strategy; Chocolate; Cognitive strategies; Food acceptance; Numbers; Ranking; Relative strategy; Stimulus equalizing bias; Words

Indexed keywords

THEOBROMA CACAO;

EID: 78049438662     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.017     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Amerine M.A., Pangborn R.M., Roessler E.B. Principles of sensory evaluation of food 1965, Academic Press, New York, NY.
2. Cardello A.V., Schutz H.G. Numerical scale-point location for constructing the LAM (labeled affective magnitude) scale. Journal of Sensory Studies 2004, 19:341-346.
3. Chung S.-J. Effects of milk type and consumer factors on the acceptance of milk among Korean female consumers. Journal of Food Science 2009, 74:S286-S295.
4. Chung, S.-J. (2010). Personal communication.
5. Colyar J.M., Eggett D.L., Steele F.M., Dunn M.L., Ogden L.V. Sensitivity comparisons of sequential monadic and side-by-side presentation protocols in affective consumer testing. Journal of Food Science 2009, 74:S322-S327.
6. Hein K.A., Jaeger S.R., Carr B.T., Delahunty C.M. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:651-661.
7. Jeon S.-Y., O'Mahony M., Kim K.-O. A comparison of category and line scales under various experimental protocols. Journal of Sensory Studies 2004, 19:49-66.
8. Jones F.N., Woskow M.H. On the relationship between estimates of magnitude of loudness and pitch. American Journal of Psychology 1962, 75:669-671.
9. Jones L.V., Peryam D.R., Thurstone L.L. Development of a scale for measuring soldiers' food preferences. Food Research 1955, 20:512-520.
10. Kemp S.E., Hollowood T., Hort J. Sensory evaluation: A practical handbook 2009, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK.
11. Kim K.O., O'Mahony M. A new approach to category scales of intensity I: Traditional vs. rank-rating. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13:241-249.
12. Koo T.-Y., Kim K.-O., O'Mahony M. Effects of forgetting on performance on various intensity scaling protocols: Magnitude estimation and labeled magnitude scale (Green scale). Journal of Sensory Studies 2002, 17:177-192.
13. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and Practices 1998, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY.
14. Lawless H.T., Malone G.J. A comparison of rating scales: Sensitivity, replicates and relative measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies 1986, 1:155-174.
15. Lee H.-J., Kim K.-O., O'Mahony M. Effects of forgetting on various protocols for category and line scales of intensity. Journal of Sensory Studies 2001, 16:327-342.
16. Lim J., Wood A., Green B.G. Derivation and evaluation of a labeled hedonic scale. Chemical Senses 2009, 34:739-751.
17. Mellers B.A. Evidence against " absolute" scaling. Perception and Psychophysics 1983, 33:523-526.
18. Mellers B.A. Reply to Zwislocki's views on " absolute" scaling. Perception and Psychophysics 1983, 34:405-408.
19. Metcalf K.L., Vickers Z. Taste intensities of oil-in-water emulsions with varying fat content. Journal of Sensory Studies 2002, 17:379-390.
20. Nepote V., Olmedo R.H., Mestrallet M.G., Grosso N.R. A study of the relationships among consumer acceptance, oxidation chemical indicators, and sensory attributes in high-oleic and normal peanuts. Journal of Food Science 2009, 74:S1-S8.
21. Parducci A. Range-frequency compromise in judgment. Psychological Monographs 1963, 77:1-50.
22. Parducci A. Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review 1965, 72:407-418.
23. Parducci A. The relativism of absolute judgments. Scientific American 1968, 219:84-90.
24. Park J.-Y., Jeon S.-Y., O'Mahony M., Kim K.-O. Induction of scaling errors. Journal of Sensory Studies 2004, 19:261-271.
25. Peryam, D. R., & Girardot, N. F. (1952). Advanced taste-test method. Food Engineering, 24(July), 58-61, 194.
26. Peryam, D. R., & Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology, 11(September), 9-14.
27. Peryam D.R., Polemis B.W., Kamen J.M., Eindhoven G., Pilgrim F.J. Food preference of men in the US armed forces 1960, Departement of the Army Quatermaster Research and Engineering Comand-Quatermaster Food and Container Institute for the Armed Forces, Chicago, IL.
28. Poulton E.C. Models for biases in judging sensory magnitudes. Psychological Bulletin 1979, 86(4):777-803.
29. Rosas-Nexticapa M., Angulo O., O'Mahony M. How well does the 9-point hedonic scale predict purchase frequency?. Journal of Sensory Studies 2005, 20:313-331.
30. Sabbe S., Verbeke W., Deliza R., Matta V.M., van Damme P. Consumer liking of fruit juices with different Açai (Euterpe oleracea Mart) concentrations. Journal of Food Science 2009, 74:S171-S176.
31. Schifferstein H.N.J., Frijters J.E.R. Contextual and sequential effects on judgments of sweetness intensity. Perception and Psychophysics 1992, 52:243-255.
32. Schutz H.G.A., Cardello A.V. A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies 2001, 16:117-159.
33. Stillmann J.A. Context effects in judging taste intensity: A comparison of variable line and category rating methods. Perception and Psychophysics 1993, 54:477-484.
34. Stone, H., & Sidel, J. L. (1993). Sensory evaluation practices (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Academic Press.
35. Stroh, S. (1998). Response bias and memory effects for selected scaling and discrimination protocols (128p). MS thesis, University of California, Davis, CA.
36. Taylor T.P., Fasina O., Bell L.N. Physical properties and consumer liking of cookies prepared by replacing sucrose with Tagatose. Journal of Food Science 2008, 73:S145-S151.
37. Vickers Z., Roberts A. Liking of popcorn containing different levels of salt. Journal of Sensory Studies 1993, 8:83-99.
38. Villegas-Ruiz X., Angulo O., O'Mahony M. Hidden and false " preferences" on the structured 9-point hedonic scale. Journal of Sensory Studies 2008, 23:780-790.
39. Villanueva N.D.M., Da Silva M.A.A.P. Comparative performance of the nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal preference maps. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:1-12.
40. Yao E., Lim J., Tamaki K., Ishii R., Kim K.-O., O'Mahony M. Structured and unstructured 9-point hedonic scales: A cross cultural study with American, Japanese and Korean consumers. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003, 18:115-139.
41. Yeu K., Lee Y., Lee S.-Y. Consumer acceptance of an extruded soy-based high-protein breakfast cereal. Journal of Food Science 2008, 73:S20-S25.
42. Zwislocki J.J. Absolute and other scales: Question of validity. Perception and Psychophysics 1983, 33:593-594.
43. Zwislocki J.J., Goodman D.A. Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: A validation. Perception and Psychophysics 1980, 28:28-38.