CATA questions for sensory product characterization: Raising awareness of biases

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 114-127

  Ares, Gastón ^a   Jaeger, Sara R ^b   Bava, Christina M ^b   Chheang, Sok L ^b   Jin, David ^b   Gimenez, Ana ^b   Vidal, Leticia ^b   Fiszman, Susana M ^c   Varela, Paula ^c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^b THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE FOR PLANT AND FOOD RESEARCH LIMITED   (New Zealand)

^c INSTITUTO DE AGROQUÍMICA Y TECNOLOGÍA DE ALIMENTOS CSIC   (Spain)

Author keywords

Check all that apply questions; Consumers; Order effects; Primacy bias; Sensory characterization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878914920     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.04.012     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Adams, J., Williams, A., Lancaster, B., & Foley, M. (2007). Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. In 7th Pangborn sensory science symposium, August 12-16. Minneapolis, USA.
2. Andani Z., Jaeger S.R., Wakeling I.N., MacFie H.J.H. Mealiness in apples: Towards a multilingual consumer vocabulary. Journal of Food Science 2001, 66:872-879.
3. Ares G., Barreiro C., Deliza R., Giménez A., Gámbaro A. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:67-86.
4. Ares G., Jaeger S.R. Check-all-that-apply questions: Influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:141-153.
5. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Giménez A. Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange-flavoured powdered drinks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2011, 46:1600-1608.
6. Bruzzone F., Ares G., Giménez A. Consumers' texture perception of milk desserts. II - Comparison with trained assessors' data. Journal of Texture Studies 2012, 43:214-226.
7. Castura, J. C. (2009). Do Panellists donkey vote in sensory choose-all-that-apply questions? In 8th pangborn sensory science symposium, July 26-30. Florence, Italy.
8. Chen S., Chaiken S. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. Dual-process theories in social psychology 1999, 73-96. Guilford, New York, NY. S. Chaiken, Y. Trope (Eds.).
9. Daillant-Spinnler B., MacFie H.J.H., Betys P.K., Hedderley D. Relationships between perceived sensory properties and major preference directions of 12 varieties of apples from the Southern Hemisphere. Food Quality and Preference 1996, 7:113-126.
10. Dooley L., Lee Y.S., Meullenet J.F. The application of check-all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:394-401.
11. Dravnieks A. Atlas of odor character profiles 1985, ASTM, Philadelphia.
12. Evans J.St.B.T. The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2006, 13:378-395.
13. Evans J.St.B.T. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgement and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 2008, 59:255-278.
14. Fisher R.A. Statistical methods for research workers 1954, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
15. Gilovich T., Griffin D.W. Heuristics and biases then and now. The psychology of intuitive judgment: Heuristic and biases 2002, 1-18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. T. Gilovich, D.W. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
16. Jacoby L.L. Incidental vs. intentional retrieval: Remembering and awareness as separate issues. Neuropsychology of memory 1984, Guilford Press, New York, NY. L.R. Squire, N. Butters (Eds.).
17. Jaeger S.R., Andani Z., Wakeling I.N., MacFie H.J.H. Consumer preferences for fresh and aged apples: A cross-cultural comparison. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9:355-366.
18. Jaeger, S. R., Chheang, S. L., Jin, D., Bava, C. M., Gimenez, A., Vidal, L., & Ares, G. (2013). Check-all-that-apply (CATA) responses elicited by consumers: within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product characterizations. Food Quality and Preference, 30, 50-67.
19. Kahneman D. A psychological point of view: Violations of rational rules as a diagnostic of mental processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2000, 23:681-683.
20. Krosnick J.A. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 1999, 50:537-567.
21. Krosnick J.A., Alwin D.F. An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response order effects in survey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly 1987, 51:201-219.
22. Krosnick J. The impact of cognitive sophistication and attitude importance on response-order and question-order effects. Context effects in social and psychological research 1992, 203-218. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. N. Schwarz, S. Sudman (Eds.).
23. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York, NY.
24. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25(1):1-18.
25. Lee Y., Findlay C., Meullenet J.F. Experimental consideration for the use of check-all-that-apply questions to describe the sensory properties of orange juices. International Journal of Food Sciences and Technology 2013, 48(1):215-219.
26. Manoukian E.B. Mathematical nonparametric statistics 1986, Gordon & Breach, New York, NY.
27. Meilgaard M.C., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory evaluation techniques 1991, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 2nd ed.
28. Meullenet, J. -F., Findlay, C. J., Tubbs, J. K., Laird, M., Kuttappan, V. A., Tokar, T., Over, K., & Lee, Y. S. (2009). Experimental consideration for the use of check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions to describe the sensory properties of orange juices. In 8th Pangborn sensory science symposium, July 26-30. Florence, Italy.
29. Murray J.M., Delahunty C.M., Baxter I.A. Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International 2001, 34:461-471.
30. Pagès J. Multiple factor analysis: Main features and application to sensory data. Revista Colombiana de Estadística 2004, 27:1-26.
31. Plotto A., Barnes K.W., Goodner K.L. Specific anosmia observed for β-ionone, but not for α-ionone: Significance for flavor research. Journal of Food Science 2006, 71:S401-S406.
32. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing, ISBN 3-900051-07-0 2007, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
33. Rasinski K.A., Mingay D., Bradburn N.M. Do respondents really ''mark all that apply'' on self-administered questions?. Public Opinion Quarterly 1994, 58:400-408.
34. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
35. Schwarz N., Hippler H.-J., Noelle-Neumann E. A cognitive model of response-order effects in survey measurement. Context effects in social and psychological research 1992, 187-220. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. N. Schwarz, S. Sudman (Eds.).
36. Smyth J.D., Dillman D.A., Melani Christian L., Stern M.J. Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2006, 70:66-77.
37. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Elsevier, Academic Press, San Diego, USA.
38. Strack F., Martin L.L. Thinking, judging, and communicating: A process account of context effects in attitude surveys. Social information processing and survey methodology 1987, 123-145. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. H. Hippler, N. Schwarz, S. Sudman (Eds.).
39. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M. Asking questions 1992, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
40. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 1973, 5:207-232.
41. Varela P., Ares G. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International 2012, 48:893-908.
42. Vázquez M.B., Curia A., Hough G. Sensory descriptive analysis, sensory acceptability and expectation studies on biscuits with reduced added salt and increased fibre. Journal of Sensory Studies 2009, 24:498-511.