An alternative way to uncover drivers of coffee liking: Preference mapping based on consumers' preference ranking and open comments

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 32, Issue , 2014, Pages 152-159

  Varela, Paula ^a   Beltrán, Julián ^a   Fiszman, Susana ^a  

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

Author keywords

9 Point hedonic scale; Coffee; Open comments; Preference mapping; Preference ranking; R index

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887827772     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.03.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ares G., Gimenez A., Gambaro A. Preference mapping of texture of dulce de leche. Journal of Sensory Studies 2006, 21:553-571.
2. Ares G., Giménez A., Barreiro C., Gámbaro A. Use of an open-ended question to identify drivers of liking of milk desserts. Comparison with preference mapping techniques. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:286-294.
3. Ares G., Varela P., Rado G., Giménez A. Identifying ideal products using three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:581-591.
4. Brown J. Recognition assessed by rating and ranking. British Journal of Psychology 1974, 65:13-22.
5. Chrea C., Melo L., Evans G., Forde C., Delahunty C., Cox D.N. An investigation using three approaches to understand the influence of extrinsic product cues on consumer behavior: An example of Australian wines. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:13-24.
6. Clemons E.K. How information changes consumer behavior and how consumer behavior determines corporate strategy. Journal of Management Information Systems 2008, 25:13-40.
7. Cliff M.A., King M.C., Scaman C., Edwards B.J. Evaluation of R-indices for preference testing of apple juices. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:241-246.
8. Cristovam E., Russell C., Paterson A., Reid E. Gender preference in hedonic ratings for espresso and espresso-milk coffees. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11:437-444.
9. Escofier B., Pagès J. L'analyse factorielle multiple: Une méthode de comparaison de groupes de variables. Data analysis and informatics III 1984, 41-55. North-Holland, Amsterdam. R.R. Sokal, E. Diday, Y. Escoufier, L. Lebart, J. Pagès (Eds.).
10. Harwood M.L., Ziegler G.R., Hayes J.E. Rejection thresholds in chocolate milk: Evidence for segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:128-133.
11. 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.
12. Hye Seong L., van Hout D. Quantification of sensory and food quality: The R-index analysis. Journal of Food Science 2009, 74:57-64.
13. 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.
14. Januszewska R., Viaene J. Sensory segments in preference for plain chocolate across Belgium and Poland. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:97-107.
15. Kim K., O'Mahony M. A new approach to category scales of intensity I: Traditional versus rank-rating. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13:241-249.
16. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York, (Chapter 9). 2nd ed.
17. Lee H.S., O'Mahony M. At what temperatures do consumers like to drink coffee?: Mixing methods. Journal of Food Science 2002, 67:2774-2777.
18. MacFie H.J.H. Preference mapping and food product development. Consumer-led food product development 2007, 407-433. Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge. H.J.H. MacFie (Ed.).
19. Meilgaard M.C., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory evaluation techniques 2006, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
20. Moskowitz H.R., Bernstein R. Variability in hedonics: Indications of world-wide sensory and cognitive preference segmentation. Journal of Sensory Studies 2000, 15:263-284.
21. Moskowitz H.R. Thoughts on subjective measurement, sensory metrics and usefulness of outcomes. Journal of Sensory Studies 2005, 20:347-362.
22. Næs T., Brockhoff P.B., Tomic O. Statistics for sensory and consumer science 2010, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.
23. O'Mahony M. Understanding discrimination tests: A user-friendly treatment of response bias, rating and ranking R-index tests and their relationship to signal detection. Journal of Sensory Studies 1992, 7:1-47.
24. Onwezen M.C., Reinders M.J., van der Lans I.A., Sijtsema S.J., Jasiulewicz A., Guardia M.L., et al. A cross-national consumer segmentation based on food benefits: The link with consumption situations and food perceptions. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:276-286.
25. Parente M.E., Manzoni A.V., Ares G. External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers' responses to a check-all-that-apply question. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:158-166.
26. Symoneaux R., Galmarini M.V., Mehinagic E. Comment analysis of consumer's likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:59-66.
27. ten Kleij F., Musters P.A.D. Text analysis of open-ended survey responses: A complementary method to preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:43-52.
28. Thompson J.L., Drake M.A., Lopetcharat K., Yates M.D. Preference mapping of commercial chocolate milks. Journal of Food Science 2004, 69:406-413.
29. van Kleef E., van Trijp H.C.M., Luning P. Internal versus external preference analysis: An exploratory study on end-user evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:387-399.
30. 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.
31. Varela, P. (2013). Application of multivariate statistical methods during new product development. In: D. Granato & G. Ares (Eds.), Mathematical and statistical methods in food science and technology. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell (in press).