Maximizing overall liking results in a superior product to minimizing deviations from ideal ratings: An optimization case study with coffee-flavored milk

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 42, Issue , 2015, Pages 27-36

  Li, Bangde ^a   Hayes, John E ^a   Ziegler, Gregory R ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Coffee; Consumer behavior; Dissatisfaction; Ideal scaling; JAR scaling; Product optimization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921858654     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.011     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. 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(6):581-591.
2. Berger C., Blauth R., Boger D., Bolster C., Burchill G., DuMouchel W., et al. Kano's methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center for Quality of Management Journal 1993, 2(4):33.
3. Bi J. A review of statistical methods for determination of relative importance of correlated predictors and identification of drivers of consumer liking. Journal of Sensory Studies 2012, 27(2):87-101.
4. Booth D.A., Thompson A., Shahedian B. A robust, brief measure of an individuals most preferred level of salt in an ordinary foodstuff. Appetite 1983, 4(4):301-312.
5. Bower J.A., Boyd R. Effect of health concern and consumption patterns on measures of sweetness by hedonic and just-about-right scales. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003, 18(3):235-248.
6. Cox D.R. A note on polynomial response functions for mixtures. Biometrika 1971, 58(1):155-159.
7. Daillant B., Issanchou S. Most preferred level of sugar: Rapid measure and consumption test. Journal of Sensory Studies 1991, 6(3):131-144.
8. Deshpande R.P., Chinnan M.S., McWatters K.H. Optimization of a chocolate-flavored, peanut-soy beverage using response surface methodology (RSM) as applied to consumer acceptability data. LWT - Food Science and Technology 2008, 41(8):1485-1492.
9. Drewnowski A., Moskowitz H.R. Sensory characteristics of foods: New evaluation techniques. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1985, 42(5):924-931.
10. Dutcosky S.D., Grossmann M.V.E., Silva R.S.S.F., Welsch A.K. Combined sensory optimization of a prebiotic cereal product using multicomponent mixture experiments. Food Chemistry 2006, 98(4):630-638.
11. Epler S., Chambers E., Kemp K.E. Hedonic scales are a better predictor than just-about-right scales of optimal sweetness in lemonade. Journal Sensory Studies 1998, 13:191-197.
12. Gilbert J.M., Young H., Ball R.D., Murray S.H. Volatile flavor compounds affecting consumer acceptability of kiwifruit. Journal of Sensory Studies 1996, 11(3):247-259.
13. Harwood M.L., Ziegler G.R., Hayes J.E. Rejection thresholds in chocolate milk: Evidence for segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26(1):128-133.
14. Hayden, S., Dong, D., & Carlson, A. (2013). Why are Americans consuming less fluid milk? A look at generational differences in intake frequency. Retrieved 01-28, 2012, from . http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err149.aspx.
15. Hayes J.E., Sullivan B.S., Duffy V.B. Explaining variability in sodium intake through oral sensory phenotype, salt sensation and liking. Physiology & Behavior 2010, 100(4):369-380.
16. Kano N., Seraku N., Takahashi F., Tsuji S. Attractive quality and must-be quality. The Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control 1984, 14(2):39-48.
17. Kim M.K., Lopetcharat K., Drake M.A. Influence of packaging information on consumer liking of chocolate milk. Journal of Dairy Science 2013, 96(8):4843-4856.
18. Lanier S.A., Hayes J.E., Duffy V.B. Sweet and bitter tastes of alcoholic beverages mediate alcohol intake in of-age undergraduates. Physiology & Behavior 2005, 83(5):821-831.
19. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York. 2nd ed.
20. Li B. Improvements on Just-About-Right (JAR) scales as product optimization tools using Kano modeling concepts 2011, University of Arkansas, Ann Arbor, [1500430 M.S.].
21. Li B., Hayes J.E., Ziegler G.R. Interpreting consumer preferences: Physicohedonic and psychohedonic models yield different information in a coffee-flavored dairy beverage. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 36:27-32. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.03.001(0.
22. Li B., Hayes J.E., Ziegler G.R. Just-about-right and ideal scaling provide similar insights into the influence of sensory attributes on liking. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 37:71-78. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.04.019.
23. Lovely C., Meullenet J.-F. Comparison of preference mapping techniques for the optimization of strawberry yogurt. Journal of Sensory Studies 2009, 24:457-478.
24. Mintel. (2013). Americans enter the ice age - Iced coffee goes beyond summer-only appeal. Published 15 August 2013. Retrieved 30 Oct 2014, from . http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/iced-and-frozen-coffee-sector-trend.
25. Moskowitz H.R. New directions for product testing and sensory analysis of food 1985, Food & Nutrition Press Inc, Westport, Connecticut.
26. Moskowitz H.R. Sensory directionals for pizza: A deeper analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies 2001, 16(6):583-600.
27. Moskowitz H.R. Just about right (JAR) directionality and the wandering sensory unit. In data analysis workshop: Getting most out of just-about-right data. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:891-899.
28. Moskowitz H.R., Gofman A. Maxwell house's calculus of coffee. Selling blue elephants: How to make great products that people want before they even know they want them 2007, 27-46. Wharton School Publishing, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. H.R. Moskowitz, A. Gofman (Eds.).
29. Moskowitz H.R., Munoz A.M., Gacula M.C. Viewpoints and controversies in sensory science and consumer product testing 2003, Food & Nutrition Press, Trumbull, Connecticut.
30. Myers R.H., Montgomery D.C. Response surface methodology, process and product optimization using designed experiments 2002, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2nd ed.
31. Nicklas T.A., O'Neil C.E., Fulgoni V.L. The nutritional role of flavored and white milk in the diets of children. Journal of School Health 2013, 83(10):728-733.
32. Parat-Wilhelms M., Denker M., Borcherding K., Hoffmann W., Luger A., Steinhart H. Influence of defined milk products on the flavour of white coffee beverages using static headspace gas chromatography-mass spectrometry/olfactometry and sensory analysis. European Food Research and Technology 2005, 221(3-4):265-273.
33. Peryam D.R., Pilgrim F.J. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology 1957, 11(9):A9-A14.
34. Petit C., Sieffermann J.M. Testing consumer preferences for iced-coffee: Does the drinking environment have any influence?. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18(1):161-172.
35. Popper R., Gibes K. Workshop summary: Data analysis workshop: Getting the most out of just-about-right data - Abstracts. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15(7-8):891-899.
36. Rothman L., Parker M.J. Just-About-Right (JAR) scales: Design, usage, benefits and risks 2009, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
37. Sebastian, R. S., Goldman, J. D., Enns, C. W., & LaComb, R. P. (2010). Fluid Milk Consumption in the United States. What We Eat In America, NHANES 2005-2006. Retrieved 01-28, 2014, from . http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/pdf/DBrief/3_milk_consumption_0506.pdf.
38. Shepherd R., Smith K., Farleigh C.A. The relationship between intensity, hedonic and relative-to-ideal ratings. Food Quality and Preference 1989, 1(2):75-80.
39. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 2004, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, California.
40. Tuorila H., Huotilainen A., Lähteenmäki L., Ollila S., Tuomi-Nurmi S., Urala N. Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variables reflecting food consumption. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:51-61.
41. van Trijp H.C.M., Punter P.H., Mickartz F., Kruithof L. The quest for the ideal product: Comparing different methods and approaches. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18(5):729-740.
42. Varela P., Beltrán J., Fiszman S. An alternative way to uncover drivers of coffee liking: Preference mapping based on consumers' preference ranking and open comments. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32 Part B:152-159.
43. Vickers Z. Sensory specific satiety in lemonade using a just right scale for sweetness. Journal of Sensory Studies 1988, 3(1):1-8.
44. Villegas B., Tarrega A., Carbonell I., Costell E. Optimising acceptability of new prebiotic low-fat milk beverages. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(2):234-242.
45. Wheeler, R. (1993). Reference Manual, ECHIP version 6.0 for Windows™. Hockessin, DE: ECHIP Inc. pp. 4-18 - 4-23.
46. Worch T., Dooley L., Meullenet J.F., Punter P.H. Comparison of PLS dummy variables and Fishbone method to determine optimal product characteristics from ideal profiles. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(8):1077-1087.
47. Worch T., Le S., Punter P., Pages J. Assessment of the consistency of ideal profiles according to non-ideal data for IPM. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24(1):99-110.
48. Xiong R., Meullenet J.F. A PLS dummy variable approach to assess the impact of jar attributes on liking. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17(3-4):188-198.
49. Youn K.S., Chung H.S. Optimization of the roasting temperature and time for preparation of coffee-like maize beverage using the response surface methodology. LWT - Food Science and Technology 2012, 46(1):305-310.