Paired Preference Tests: Use Of Placebo Stimuli With Liking And Buying Preferences

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 106-117

  Sung, Young Eun ^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

ORANGE JUICE; POTATO CHIP; RESPONSE BIAS; RESPONSE FREQUENCY; SAMPLE SIZES;

FRUIT JUICES;

FREQUENCY RESPONSE;

SOLANUM TUBEROSUM;

EID: 79953329562     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00327.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. ALFARO-RODRIGUEZ, H., ANGULO, O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2007. Be your own placebo: A double paired preference test approach for establishing expected frequencies. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 353-361.
2. ALFARO-RODRIGUEZ, H., ANGULO, O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2008. Paired preference tests: "50:50" and "Alternating" no preferences. J. Sensory Studies 23, 765-779.
3. ANGULO, O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2005. The paired preference test and the "No Preference" option: Was Odesky correct? Food Qual. Prefer. 16, 425-434.
4. ANGULO, O., OKAYAMA, T., NAKAMURA, T., YUEN, R. and O'MAHONY, M. 2009. Use of purchase preference options to increase "no preference" frequencies in placebo preference tests. J. Sensory Studies 24, 258-268.
5. BOWKER, A.H. 1948. A test for symmetry in contingency tables. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 43, 572-574.
6. CHAPMAN, K.W. and LAWLESS, H.T. 2005. Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. J. Sensory Studies 20, 454-468.
7. CHAPMAN, K.W., GRACE-MARTIN, K. and LAWLESS, H.T. 2006. Expectations and stability of preference choice. J. Sensory Studies 21, 441-455.
8. DESSIRIER, J.-M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1999. Comparison of d' values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian model sequential sensitivity analysis and power. Food Qual. Prefer. 10, 51-58.
9. ENNIS, D.M. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. 44, 114-118.
10. ENNIS, D.M. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
11. ENNIS, D.M. and COLLINS, J. 1980. The distinction between discrimination and splitting in paired testing. Report #80-233, pp. 50, Philip Morris Research Center Richmond, VA.
12. ENNIS, D.M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1995. Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 1088-1097.
13. FOLEY, M., WILLIAMS, A., BADE, J., LANCASTER, B., POPPER, R. and CARR, B.T. 2003. Effect of preference-question format with and without sample differences. Abstracts of The 5th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, July 2003, Boston, Massachusetts, Abstract #043.
14. FRIJTERS, J.E.R. 1979. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Senses 4, 355-358.
15. GREEN, D.M. and SWETS, J.A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, Jon Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
16. KIM, H-J., JEON, S.Y., KIM, K-O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2006. Thurstonian models and variance I: Experimental confirmation of cognitive strategies for difference tests and effects of perceptual variance. J. Sensory Studies 21, 465-484.
17. KIM, H-S., LEE, H-S., O'MAHONY, M. and KIM, K-O. 2008. Paired preference tests using placebo pairs and different response options for chips, orange juices and cookies. J. Sensory Studies 23, 417-438.
18. LAU, S., O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2004. Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discrimination. Percept. Psychophys. 66, 464-474.
19. LAWLESS, H.T. and HEYMANN, H. 1998. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.
20. LEACH, C. 1979. Introduction to Statistics: A Nonparametric Approach for the Social Sciences, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
21. LEE, H-S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2004. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 13, 841-847.
22. LEE, H-S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2007. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 369-383.
23. MACMILLAN, N.A. and CREELMAN, C.D. 2005. Detection Theory: A User's Guide, 2nd Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
24. MARASCUILO, L.A. and MCSWEENEY, M. 1977. Non Parametric and Distribution-Free Methods for the Social Sciences, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Monterrey, CA.
25. MARCHISANO, C., LIM, J., CHO, H.-S., D-S, S.U.H., JEON, S.-Y., KIM, K.O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2003. Consumers report preference when they should not: A cross-cultural study. J. Sensory Studies 18, 847-516.
26. MAXWELL, A.E. 1970. Comparing the classification of subjects by two independent judges. Br. J. Psychiatry 116, 651-655.
27. MCNEMAR, Q. 1947. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 12, 153-157.
28. O'MAHONY, M. and GOLDSTEIN, L. 1986. The effectiveness of sensory difference tests: Sequential sensitivity analysis for liquid food stimuli. J. Food Sci. 51, 1550-1553.
29. O'MAHONY, M. and GOLDSTEIN, L. 1987. Tasting successive salt and water stimuli: The roles of adaptation, variability in physical signal strength, learning, supra- and subadapting signal detectability. Chem. Senses 12, 425-436.
30. O'MAHONY, M. and ODBERT, N. 1985. A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures: Sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. J. Food Sci. 50, 1055-1058.
31. O'MAHONY, M. and ROUSSEAU, B. 2002. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 157-164.
32. O'MAHONY, M. and WICHCHUKIT, S. 2009. Paired preference tests: Do consumers take away what they say they prefer? Proceedings of the 8th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Florence, July 26-30, Abstract #34.
33. O'MAHONY, M., MASUOKA, S. and ISHII, R. 1994. A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. J. Sensory Studies 9, 247-272.
34. 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.
35. ROUSSEAU, B., ROGEAUX, M. and O'MAHONY, M. 1999. Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and τ-criteria. Food Qual. Prefer. 10, 173-184.
36. SANTOSA, M. and O'MAHONY, M. 2008. Sequential sensitivity analysis for same-different tests: Some further insights. J. Sensory Studies 23, 267-283.
37. SHESKIN, D.J. 2007. Handbook of Parametric and Non-Parametric Statistical Procedures, 4th Ed., Chapmann & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
38. STUART, A. 1955. A test for homogeneity of the marginal distributions in a two-way classification. Biometrika 42, 412-416.
39. VILLEGAS-RUIZ, X., ANGULO, O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2008. Paired preference "placebo" tests with "identical" stimuli: Does introducing graded preference responses affect the frequency of "No Preference" responses? J. Sensory Studies 23, 431-449.
40. WILKE, K.D., COCHRANE, C.-Y.C. and CHAMBERS, I.V.E. 2006. Multiple preference tests can provide more information on consumer preferences. J. Sensory Studies 21, 612-625.