Various paired preference tests: Experimenter effect on "take home" choice

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 778-790

  Weiss, B H ^a   O'mahony, M ^b   Wichchukit, S ^c  

^a FOM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c KASETSART UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIASING EFFECTS; EXPERIMENTER EFFECT; RELATIVE DEGREES;

TESTING;

THEOBROMA CACAO;

EID: 78149259601     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00309.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. BOWKER, A.H. 1948. Atest for symmetry in contingency tables. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 43, 572-574.
2. CAPORALE, G., POLICASTRO, S., TUORILA, H. and MONTELONE, E. 2009. Hedonic ratings and consumption of school lunch among preschool children. Food Qual. Prefer. 20, 482-489.
3. COMBRIS, P., BAZOCHE, P., GRIAUD-HERAUD, E. and ISSANCHOU, S. 2009. Food choices: What do we learn from combining sensory and economic experiments? Food Qual. Prefer. 20, 550-557.
4. FINDLAY, C.J., WILSON, H., SPEARS, M., COWEN, S. and CASTURA, J. 2009. Does purchase history increase the validity of consumer panels? A case study. Proceedings of the 8th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Florence, July 26-30, Abstract # P2.1.68.
5. GRUNERT, K.G., JUHL, H.J., ESBJERG, L., JENSEN, B.B., BECHLARSEN, T., BRUNSØ, K. and MADSEN, C.Ø. 2009. Comparing methods for measuring consumer willingness to pay for a basic and an improved ready made snack product. Food Qual. Prefer. 20, 607-619.
6. LANGE, C., MARTIN, C., CHABANET, C., COMBRIS, P. and ISSANCHOU, S. 2002. Impact of the information provided to consumers on their willingness to pay for Champagne: Comparison with hedonic scores. Food Qual. Prefer. 13, 597-608.
7. LAWLESS, H.T. and HEYMANN, H. 1998. Sensory Evaluation of Food. Principles and Practices, Aspen Publishers, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD.
8. LUSK, J.L. and SHOGREN, J.F. 2007. Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
9. MARASCUILO, L.A. and MCSWEENEY, M. 1977. Nonparametric and Distribution-Free Methods for the Social Sciences, Brooks/Cole Publ. Co., Monterey, CA.
10. PERYAM, D.R. and GIRADOT, N.F. 1952. Advanced taste-test method. Food Eng. 24, 58-61, 194.
11. PERYAM, D.R. and PILGRIM, F.J. 1957. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technol. 11, 9-14.
12. PERYAM, D.R., POLEMIS, B.W., KAMEN, J.M., EINDHOVEN, J. and PILGRIM, F.J. 1960. Food Preferences of Men in the U.S. Armed Forces, Department of the Army Quatermaster Research and Engineering Comand-Quatermaster Food and Container Institute for the Armed Forces, Chicago, IL.
13. RESANO, H., SANJUAN, A.I. and ALBISU, L.M. 2009. Consumers' acceptability and actual choice. An exploratory research on cured ham in Spain. Food Qual. Prefer. 20, 391-398.
14. RESURRECCION, A.V.A. 1998. Consumer Sensory Testing For Product Development, Aspen Publ., Inc., Gaithersburg, MD.
15. ROSAS-NEXTICAPA, M., ANGULO, O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2005. How well does the 9-point hedonic scale predict purchase frequency? J. Sensory Studies 20, 313-331.
16. SHESKIN, D.J. 2007. Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures, 4th Ed., Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
17. STEFANI, D.J., ROMANO, D. and CAVICCI, A. 2006. Consumer expectations, liking and willingness to pay for specialty foods: Do sensory characteristics tell the whole story? Food Qual. Prefer. 17, 53-62.
18. STONE, H. and SIDEL, J.L. 1993. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 2nd Ed., Academic Press, San Francisco, CA.
19. WICHCHUKIT, S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2010. Paired preference tests: "Liking," "Buying" and "Take Away" preferences. Food Qual. Prefer. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.002.