Paired preference tests with reversed hidden demand characteristics

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 149-158

  Xia, Yixun ^a,b   Rivera Quintero, Alondra ^a   Calderon, Eduardo ^a   Zhong, Fang ^b   O'Mahony, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b JIANGNAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS; GAIN INSIGHT; SAMPLE SIZES; SENSORY ATTRIBUTES; SENSORY PROPERTIES;

FOOD TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 84897915061     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/joss.12090     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Alfaro-Rodriguez, H., O'Mahony, M. and Angulo, O. 2005. Paired preference tests: d′ values from Mexican consumers with various response options. J. Sensory Studies 20, 275-281.
2. 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.
3. Alfaro-Rodriguez, H., Angulo, M. and O'Mahony, M. 2008. Paired preference tests: "50:50" and "alternating" no preferences. J. Sensory Studies 23, 765-779.
4. Alvarez-Coureaux, Y., Aguilar, P., O'Mahony, M. and Angulo, O. 2010. Assessment of preference with controls for response bias operating in the test situation: A practical example using omega-3 enriched wholegrain breads with Ecuadorian consumers. J. Sensory Studies 25, 659-671.
5. Angulo, O., Okayama, K., 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.
6. Bowker, A.H. 1948. A test for symmetry in contingency tables. J. Amer. Stats. Assoc. 43, 572-574.
7. 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.
8. Ennis, D.M. and Collins, J. 1980. The distinction between discrimination and splitting in paired testing. Report #80-233, Philip Morris Research Center, Richmond, Virginia, pp. 50.
9. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York, NY.
10. 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.
11. Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food. Principles and Practices, Springer, New York, NY.
12. Marchisano, C., Lim, J., Cho, H.-S., Suh, D.-S., 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, 487-516.
13. Maxwell, A.E. 1970. Comparing the classification of subjects by two independent judges. Brit. J. Psychiat. 116, 651-655.
14. McNemar, Q. 1947. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 12, 153-157.
15. Neal, D.T., Wood, W., Wu, M. and Kurlander, D. 2011. The pull of the past: When do habits persist despite conflict with motives? Personality Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37, 1428-1437.
16. Stuart, A. 1955. A test for homogeneity of the marginal distributions in a two-way classification. Biometrika 42, 412-416.
17. Sung, Y.E., Lee, H.-S., O'Mahony, M. and Kim, K.-O. 2011. Paired preference tests: Use of placebo stimuli with liking and buying preferences. J. Sensory Studies 26, 106-117.