Duo-Trio Difference-Preference Test with Two Replications: Use of Psychological Biases for Measuring Meaningful Preference

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 211-224

  Kim, Min A ^a   Lee, Hye Seong ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FERMENTED MILK;

DISCRIMINABILITY; MILK PRODUCTS; PSYCHOLOGICAL BIAS; SAMPLE BIAS;

TESTING;

EID: 84937979224     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/joss.12152     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. 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.
2. Angulo, O. and O'Mahony, M. 2005. The paired preference test and the 'No Preference' option: Was Odesky correct? Food Qual. Prefer. 16, 425-434.
3. 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. Sens. Stud. 24, 258-268.
4. Bengtsson, K. and Helm, E. 1946. Principles of taste testing. Waller. Lab. Commun. 9, 171-181.
5. Bi, J. 2007a. Replicated similarity testing using paired comparison method. J. Sens. Stud. 22, 176-186.
6. Bi, J. 2007b. Similarity testing using paired comparison method. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 500-507.
7. Bi, J. 2011. Bayesian approach to sensory preference, difference and equivalence tests. J. Sens. Stud. 26, 383-399.
8. Braun, V., Rogeaux, M., Schneid, N., O'Mahony, M. and Rousseau, B. 2004. Corroborating the 2-AFC and 2-AC Thurstonian models using both a model system and sparkling water. Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 501-507.
9. Calderón, E., Rivera-Quintero, A., Xia, Y., Angulo, O. and O'Mahony, M. 2015. The triadic preference test. Food Qual. Prefer. 39, 8-15.
10. Chae, J.-E., Lee, Y.-M. and Lee, H.-S. 2010. Affective same-different discrimination tests for assessing consumer discriminability between milks with subtle differences. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 427-438.
11. Chapman, K.W. and Lawless, H.T. 2005. Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. J. Sens. Stud. 20, 454-468.
12. Chapman, K.W., Grace-Martin, K. and Lawless, H.T. 2006. Expectations and stability of preference choice. J. Sens. Stud. 21, 441-455.
13. Choi, Y.-J., Kim, J.-Y., Christensen, R.H.B., Van Hout, D. and Lee, H.-S. 2014. Superior performance of constant-saltier-reference DTF and DTFM to same-different tests by consumers for discriminating products varying sodium contents. Food Qual. Prefer. 37, 100-108.
14. Christensen, R.H.B. 2013. Ordinal: Regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2013.9-30. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=ordinal (accessed November 11, 2014).
15. Christensen, R.H.B. and Brockhoff, P.B. 2014. sensR: An R-package for sensory discrimination. R package version 1.4-0. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=sensR (accessed November 11, 2014).
16. Christensen, R.H.B., Lee, H.-S. and Brockhoff, P.B. 2012. Estimation of the Thurstonian model for the 2-AC protocol. Food Qual. Prefer. 24, 119-128.
17. Day, R.L. 1969. Position bias in paired product tests. J. Market. Res. 6, 98-100.
18. Ennis, D.M. and Bi, J. 1998. The beta-binomial model: Accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sens. Stud. 13, 389-412.
19. Ennis, D.M. and Collins, J. 1980. The distinction between discrimination and splitting in paired testing. Philip Morris Technical Report. 80-233. www.pmdocs.com/pdf/1000386683_6734.pdf.
20. Ennis, D.M. and Ennis, J.M. 2012. Accounting for no difference/preference responses or ties in choice experiments. Food Qual. Prefer. 23, 13-17.
21. Ennis, J.M. and Ennis, D.M. 2012. A comparison of three commonly used methods for treating no preference votes. J. Sens. Stud. 27, 123-129.
22. Frandsen, L.W., Dijksterhuis, G., Brockhoff, P., Nielsen, J.H. and Martens, M. 2003. Subtle differences in milk: Comparison of an analytical and an affective test. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 515-526.
23. Frandsen, L.W., Dijksterhuis, G., Brockhoff, P., Nielsen, J.H. and Martens, M. 2007. Feelings as a basis for discrimination: Comparison of a modified authenticity test with the same-different test for slightly different types of milk. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 97-105.
24. Glenn, W.A. and David, H.A. 1960. Ties in paired-comparison experiments using a modified Thurstone-Mosteller model. Biometrics 16, 86-109.
25. Green, D.M. and Swets, J.A. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, Wiley, New York, NY.
26. Greenberg . A. 1958, Paired comparisons in consumer-product tests. J. Mark. 22, 411-414.
27. Greenberg, A. and Collins, S. 1966. Paired comparison taste tests: Some food for thought. J. Mark. Res. 3, 76-80.
28. Irwin, F.W. 1958. An analysis of the concepts of discrimination and preference. Am. J. Psychol. 71, 152-163.
29. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, NY.
30. Keith, N.K., Pettijohn, C.E. and Keith, M.E. 2009. Discrimination tests: Evaluating context effects and respondent reliability using the switchback experimental design. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 17, 115-125.
31. 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. Sens. Stud. 23, 417-438.
32. Kim, M.-A and Lee, H.-S. 2012. Investigation of operationally more powerful duo-trio test protocols: Effects of different reference schemes. Food Qual. Prefer. 25, 183-191.
33. Kim, M.-A, Lee, Y.-M. and Lee, H.-S. 2010. Comparison of d' estimates produced by three versions of a duo-trio test for discriminating tomato juices with varying salt concentrations: The effects of the number and position of the reference stimulus. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 504-511.
34. Kim, M.-A, Chae, J.-E., Van Hout, D. and Lee, H.-S. 2014. Higher performance of constant-reference duo-trio test incorporating affective reference framing in comparison with triangle test. Food Qual. Prefer. 32, 113-125.
35. Kim, M.-A, Dessirier, J.M., Van Hout, D. and Lee, H.-S. 2015a. Consumer context-specific sensory acceptance tests: Effects of a cognitive warm-up on affective product discrimination. Food Qual. Prefer. 41, 163-171.
36. Kim, M.-A, Sim, H.-M. and Lee, H.-S. 2015b. Affective discrimination methodology: Determination and use of a consumer-relevant sensory difference for food quality maintenance. Food Res. Int. 70, 47-54.
37. Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, 2nd Ed., Springer, New York, NY.
38. Lee, H.-S. and Kim, K.-O. 2008. Difference test sensitivity: Comparison of three versions of the duo-trio method requiring different memory schemes and taste sequences. Food Qual. Prefer. 19, 97-102.
39. Lee, H.-S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2007. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 369-383.
40. Macmillan, N.A. and Creelman, C.D. 2005. Detection Theory: A User's Guide, 2nd Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ.
41. Marchisano, C., Lim, J., Cho, H.-S., Suh, D.-S., Jeon, S.-Y., Kim, K.-O. and O'MAHONY, M. 2003. Consumers report preferences when they should not: A cross-cultural study. J. Sens. Stud. 18, 487-516.
42. Moskowitz, H.R. 1980. Psychometric evaluation of food preferences. J. Foodserv. Syst. 1, 149-167.
43. Moskowitz, H.R., Beckley, J.H. and Resurreccion, A.V. A. 2012. Sensory and Consumer Research in Food Product Design and Development, Chapter 9, 2nd Ed., Blackwell Publishing, Ames, Iowa.
44. Peryam, D.R. and Girardot, N.F. 1952. Advanced taste test method. Food Eng. 24, 58-61.
45. Prescott, J. 1999. Flavour as a psychological construct: Implications for perceiving and measuring the sensory qualities of foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 10, 349-356.
46. Prescott, J., Norris, L., Kunst, M. and Kim, S. 2005. Estimating a "consumer rejection threshold" for cork taint in white wine. Food Qual. Prefer. 16, 345-349.
47. R CORE TEAM. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed November 11, 2014).
48. Resurreccion, A.V.A. 1998. Consumer Sensory Testing for Product Development, Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, MD.
49. Rousseau, B., Stroh, S. and O'MAHONY, M. 2002. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias. Food Qual. Prefer. 13, 39-45.
50. Schutz, H.G. 1954. Effect of bias on preference in the difference-preference test. In Food Acceptance Testing Methodology, A Symposium. Advisory Board on Quartermaster Research & Development (D.R. Peryam, F.J. Pilgrim and M.S. Peterson, eds.) pp. 85-92, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
51. Stone, H., Bleibaum, R.N. and Thomas, H.A. 2012. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 4th Ed., Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
52. 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. Sens. Stud. 26, 106-117.
53. Van Hout, D., Hautus, M.J. and Lee, H.-S. 2011. Investigation of test performance over repeated sessions using signal detection theory: Comparison of three nonattribute-specified difference tests 2-AFCR, A-NOT A and 2-AFC. J. Sens. Stud. 26, 311-321.
54. Wilke, K.D, Cochrane, C.Y.C and IV, E.C. 2006. Multiple preference tests can provide more information on consumer preferences. J. Sens. Stud. 21, 612-625.
55. Xia, Y., Rivera-Quintero, A., Calderon, E., Zhong, F. and O'Mahony, M. 2014. Paired preference tests with reversed hidden demand characteristics. J. Sens. Stud. 29, 149-158.