The triadic preference test

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 39, Issue , 2015, Pages 8-15

  Calderón, Eduardo ^a,b   Rivera Quintero, Alondra ^a   Xia, Yixun ^a   Angulo, Ofelia ^b   O'Mahony, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO DE VERACRUZ   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Extraneous factors; Placebo pairs; Placebo test 'screening'; Preference testing; Triadic preference test

Indexed keywords

EID: 84903978054     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.016     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Alfaro-Rodriguez H., Angulo O., O'Mahony M. Be your own placebo: A double paired preference test approach for establishing expected frequencies. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:353-361.
2. Alfaro-Rodriguez H., Angulo O., O'Mahony M. Paired preference tests: '50:50' and 'alternating' no preferences. Journal of Sensory Studies 2008, 23:765-779.
3. Alfaro-Rodriguez H., O'Mahony M., Angulo O. Paired preference tests: d' Values from Mexican consumers with various response options. Journal of Sensory Studies 2005, 20:275-281.
4. Alvarez-Coureaux Y., Aguilar P., O'Mahony M., Angulo O. 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. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:659-671.
5. Angulo O., Okayama T., Nakamura T., Yuen R., O'Mahony M. Use of purchase preference options to increase 'no preference' frequencies in placebo preference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 2009, 24:258-268.
6. Angulo O., O'Mahony M. The paired preference test and the 'No Preference' option: Was Odesky correct?. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:425-434.
7. Ares G., Etchemendy E., Antúnez L., Vidal L., Giménez A., Jaeger S.R. Visual attention by consumers to check-all-that-apply questions: Insights to support methodological development. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:210-220.
8. Bowker A.H. A test for symmetry in contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1948, 43:572-574.
9. Braun V., Rogeaux N., Schneid N., O'Mahony M., Rousseau B. Corroborating the 2-AFC and 2-AC Thurstonian models using both a model system and sparkling water. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:501-506.
10. Chapman K.W., Grace-Martin K., Lawless H.T. Expectations and stability of preference choice. Journal of Sensory Studies 2006, 21:441-455.
11. Chapman K.W., Lawless H.T. Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. Journal of Sensory Studies 2005, 20:454-468.
12. Chapman K.W., Lovelace E., Cardello A., Lawless H.T. Preference for one of two identical stimuli: Expectations, explicit instructions and personal traits. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25(Suppl. 1):35-53.
13. Christensen R.H.B., Ennis J.M., Ennis D.M., Brockhoff P.B. Paired preference data with a no-preference option - Statistical tests for comparison with placebo data. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:48-55.
14. Christensen B.B.H., Lee H.-S., Brockhoff P.B. Estimation of the Thurstonian model for the 2-AC protocol. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:119-128.
15. Delwiche D., O'Mahony M. Flavor discrimination: An extension of Thurstonian 'paradoxes' to the tetrad method. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 7:1-5.
16. Ennis D.M. The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 1993, 8:353-370.
17. Ennis D.M., Collins J. The distinction between discrimination and splitting in paired testing. Report # 80-233 1980, 50. Philip Morris Research Center, Richmond, Virginia.
18. Ennis D.M., Ennis J.M. Accounting for no difference/preference responses or ties in choice experiments. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 23:13-17.
19. Ennis J.M., Ennis D.M. A comparison of three commonly used methods for treating no preference votes. Journal of Sensory Studies 2012, 27:123-129.
20. Green D.M., Swets J.A. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics 1966, Wiley, New York.
21. Harwood M.L., Ziegler G.R., Hayes J.E. Rejection thresholds in chocolate milk: Evidence for segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 29:128-133.
22. Jesionka V., Rousseau B., Ennis J.M. Transitioning from proportion of discriminators to a more meaningful measure of sensory difference. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:77-82.
23. Kahneman D. Thinking fast and slow 2011, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York.
24. Kim H.-S., Lee H.-S., O'Mahony M., Kim K.-O. Paired preference tests using placebo pairs and different response options for chips, orange juices and cookies. Journal of Sensory Studies 2008, 23:417-438.
25. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York. 2nd ed.
26. Lee H.-S., O'Mahony M. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Science and Biotechnology 2004, 13:841-847.
27. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection Theory: a User's Guide 1991, Cambridge University Press, New York.
28. Marchisano C., Lim J., Cho H.-S., Suh D.-S., Jeon S.-Y., Kim K.O., O'Mahony M. Consumers report preference when they should not: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003, 18:487-516.
29. Neal D.T., Wood W., Wu M., Kurlander D. The pull of the past: When do habits persist despite conflict with motives?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2011, 37:1428-1437.
30. O'Mahony M., Masuoka S., Ishii R. A theoretical note on difference tests: models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. Journal of Sensory Studies 1994, 9:247-272.
31. O'Mahony M., Rousseau B. Discrimination testing: a few ideas, old and new. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 14:157-164.
32. Peryam D.R., Polemis B.W., Kamen J.M., Eindhoven J., Pilgrim F.J. Food preferences of men in the U.S. armed forces 1960, Department of the Army Quartermaster Research and Engineering Command, Chicago.
33. Prescott J., Norris L., Kunst M., Kim K. Estimating a "consumer rejection threshold" for cork taint in white wine. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:345-349.
34. Resurreccion A.V.A. Consumer sensory testing for product development 1998, Aspen Publ. Inc., Maryland.
35. Rosas-Nexticapa M., Angulo O., O'Mahony M. How well does the 9-point scale predict purchase frequency. Journal of Sensory Studies 2005, 20:313-331.
36. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Elsevier, Oxford, UK. 3rd ed.
37. Sung Y.E., Lee H.-S., O'Mahony M., Kim K.-O. Paired preference tests: Use of placebo stimuli with liking and buying preference. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:106-117.
38. Ullman-Margalit E., Morganbesser S. Picking and choosing. Social Research 1977, 44:757-785.
39. Wichchukit S., O'Mahony M. Paired preference tests: 'Liking', 'Buying' and 'Take Away' preferences. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:925-929.
40. Xia Y., Rivera-Quintero A., Calderon E., Zhong F., O'Mahony M. Paired preference tests with reversed hidden demand characteristics. Journal of Sensory Studies 2014, 29:149-158.