Visual attention by consumers to check-all-that-apply questions: Insights to support methodological development

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 32, Issue , 2013, Pages 210-220

  Ares, Gastón ^a,b   Etchemendy, Eliana ^a   Antúnez, Lucía ^a   Vidal, Leticia ^a   Giménez, Ana ^a,b   Jaeger, Sara R ^c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

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

Author keywords

CATA; Consumers; Eye tracking; Primacy bias; Research methodology; Sensory characterization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84888101000     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.006     Document Type: Article

References (57)

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. Poster presented at 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. Minneapolis, USA, 12-16 August, 2007.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Ares G., Jaeger S.R., Bava C.M., Chheang S.L., Jin D., Giménez A., et al. CATA questions for sensory product characterization: Raising awareness of biases. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:114-127.
5. Ares G., Tárrega A., Izquierdo L., Jaeger S.R. Investigation of the number of consumers necessary to obtain stable sample and descriptor configurations from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 31:135-141.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Cacioppo J.T., Petty R.E. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1982, 42:116-131.
9. Cannell C.F., Miller P.V., Oksenberg L. Research on interviewing techniques. Sociological methodology 1981, 389-437. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. S. Leinhardt (Ed.).
10. Castura J.C. Do Panellists donkey vote in sensory choose-all-that-apply questions? Oral presentation at 8th pangborn sensory science symposium, July 26-30 2009, Florence, Italy.
11. 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.).
12. Clifton C., Staub A., Rayner K. Eye movements in reading words and sentences. Eye movement research: A window on mind and brain 2007, 341-372. Elsevier Ltd, Oxford. R. Van Gompel, M. Fisher, W. Murray, R.L. Hill (Eds.).
13. 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.
14. Earthy P.J., MacFie H.J.H., Hedderley D. Effect of question order on sensory perception and preference in central location trials. Journal of Sensory Studies 1997, 12:215-237.
15. Ennis D.M., Ennis J.M. Analysis and Thurstonian scaling of applicability scores. Journal of Sensory Studies 2013, 28:188-193.
16. Epstein S., Pacini R., Denes-Raj V., Heiser H. Individual differences in intuitive - Experiential and analytical - Rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, 2:390-405.
17. Evans J.St.B.T. The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2006, 13:378-395.
18. Evans J.S.B.T. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 2008, 59:255-278.
19. Fisher R.A. Statistical methods for research workers 1954, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.
20. Freeman D.H. Logistic regression applied categorical data analysis 1987, Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 237-274.
21. Galesic M., Tourangeau R., Couper M.P., Conrad F.G. Eye-tracking data. New insights on response order effects and other cognitive shortcuts in survey responding. Public Opinion Quarterly 2008, 72:892-913.
22. Holmqvist K., Nyström M., Andersson R., van de Weijer J. Eyetracking. A comprehensive guide to methods and measures 2011, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
23. Jacob R.J.K., Karn K.S. Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver promises. The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research 2003, 573-605. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. J. Hyönä, R. Radach, H. Deubel (Eds.).
24. Jacoby L.L. Incidental vs. intentional retrieval: Remembering and awareness as separate issues. Neuropsychology of memory 1984, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
25. Jaeger S.R., Chheang S.L., Yin L., Bava C.M., Giménez A., Vidal L., et al. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) responses elicited by consumers: Within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product characterizations. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:56-67.
26. Jaeger S.R., Giacalone D., Roigard C.M., Pineau B., Vidal L., Giménez A., et al. Investigation of bias of hedonic scores when co-eliciting product attribute information using CATA questions. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 30:242-249.
27. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow 2011, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
28. Kahneman D., Peavler W.S. Incentive effects and pupillary changes in association learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1969, 79:312-318.
29. Krosnick J.A. 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.).
30. Krosnick J.A. Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 1999, 50:537-567.
31. 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.
32. LaBerge D. Attentional processing: The brain's art of mindfulness 1995, Harvard University Press, London, UK.
33. 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, 48:215-219.
34. Lenzner T., Kaczmirek L., Galesic M. Seeing through the eyes of the respondent: An eye-tracking study on survey question comprehension. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2011, 23:361-373.
35. Manoukian E.B. Mathematical nonparametric statistics 1986, Gordon & Breach, New York, NY.
36. Pieters R., Wedel M. Attention capture and transfer in advertising. Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing 2004, 68:36-50.
37. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2007, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
38. 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.
39. Redline, C.D., & Lankford, C.P. (2001). Eye-movement analysis: A new tool for evaluating the design of visually administered instruments (paper and web). In Proceedings of the survey research methods section of the American statistical association, available at Accessed August 22nd, 2013. http://www.amstat.org/Sections/Srms/Proceedings/y2001/Proceed/00248.pdf.
40. Reinbach H.C., Giacalone D., Machado Ribeiro L., Bredie W.L.B., Frøst M.B. Comparison of three sensory profiling methods based on consumer perception: CATA, CATA with intensity and Napping®. Food Quality and Preference 2013, in press. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.02.004.
41. Rizzolatti G., Riggio L., Sheliga B.M. Space and selective attention. Attention and performance 1994, 231-265. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. C. Umità, M. Moscovitch (Eds.).
42. Russo J.E. Eye fixations can save the world: A critical evaluation and a comparison between eye fixations and other information processing methodologies. Advances in consumer research 1978, 561-570. Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI. H.K. Hunt (Ed.).
43. Salvucci D.D., Goldberg J.H. Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. ETRA '00 Proceedings of the 2000 symposium on eye tracking research & applications 2000, 71-78. ACM, New York.
44. 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.).
45. 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.
46. Sudman S., Bradburn N.M. Asking questions 1992, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
47. Tirkkonen-Condit S. Think-aloud protocols. Encyclopedia of language linguistics 2006, 678-686. Elsevier Science, Oxford. 2nd ed.
48. Technology Tobii Guidelines for using the retrospective think aloud protocol with eye tracking 2009, Tobii Technology, Stockholm.
49. Troncoso E., Pedreschi F., Zúñiga R.N. Comparative study of physical and sensory properties of pre-treated potato slices during vacuum and atmospheric frying. LWT - Food Science and Technology 2009, 42:187-195.
50. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology 1973, 5:207-232.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Vickers Z.M., Christensen C.M., Fahrenholtz S.K., Gengler I.M. Effect of questionnaire design and the number of samples tasted on hedonic ratings. Journal of Sensory Studies 1993, 8:189-200.
54. Ward C.D.W., Resurreccion A.V.A., McWatters K.H. Systematic approach to prediction of snack chip acceptability utilizing discriminant functions based on instrumental measurements. Journal of Sensory Studies 1995, 10:181-201.
55. Wedel M., Pieters A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. Research of Marketing Research 2007, 4:123-147.
56. Williams E.J. Experimental designs for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Austral Journal of Scientific Research Series A 1949, 2:149-168.
57. Wolfe J.M. Visual search. Attention 1998, 13-74. Psychology Press, East Sussex. H. Pashler (Ed.).