Food Science and Biotechnology

Korean Society of Food Science and Technology (한국식품과학회)
권호 표지

Some New Approaches to Consumer Acceptance Measurement as a Guide to Marketing

  • Lee, Hye-Seong (Department of Food Science and Technology, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • O'Mahony, Michael (Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California)
  • Published : 2007.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The potential impact of the methods of sensory science on consumer testing and marketing is reviewed. Areas such as predicting purchase behavior, new approaches to scaling, and cross cultural effects are discussed. An example of the complexity of sensory measurement used to obtain consumer and marketing information is highlighted, using the simple paired preference test as an example.

Keywords

References

  1. Lee H-S, O'Mahony M. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 13: 841-847 (2004)
  2. Lee H-S, O'Mahony M. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Qual. Prefer. 18: 369-383 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.04.003
  3. MacFie H. Preference mapping and food product development. pp. 551-592. In: Consumer-led Food Product Development. MacFie H (ed). CRC Press, New York, NY, USA (2007)
  4. Delwiche JF. Thurstonian probabilistic approaches to new food product development. pp. 456-470. In: Consumer-led Food Product Development. MacFie H (ed). CRC Press, New York, NY, USA (2007)
  5. Kim NS. Discriminant analysis of marketed liquor by a multichannel taste evaluation system. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 14: 554-557 (2005)
  6. Chung SJ. Flavor release from ice cream during eating. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 16: 8-17 (2007)
  7. Lee O-H, Lee H-S, Lee S-M, Kim Y-K, Kim K-O. Sensory characteristics and consumer acceptability of various green teas. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 17: in press (2008)
  8. Rosas-Nexticapa M, Angulo O, O'Mahony M. How well does the 9-point scale predict purchase frequency? J. Sens. Stud. 20: 313-331 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2005.00027.x
  9. Peryam DR, Girardot NF. Advanced taste-test method. Food Eng. 24: 58-61, 194 (1952)
  10. Peryam DR, Pilgrim FJ. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technol.-Chicago 11: 9-14 (1957)
  11. Peryam DR, Polemis BW, Kamen JM, Eindhoven G, Pilgrim FJ. Food preferences of men in the U.S. Armed forces. Department of the Army Quatermaster Research and Engineering Command-Quatermaster Food and Container Institute for the Armed Forces, Chicago, IL, USA (1960)
  12. Jones LV, Thurstone LL. The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 39: 31-36 (1955) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042184
  13. Jones LV, Peryam DR, Thurstone LL. Development of a scale for measuring soldiers' food preferences. Food Res. 20: 512-520 (1955) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1955.tb16862.x
  14. Edwards AL. The scaling of stimuli by the method of successive intervals. J. Appl. Psychol. 36: 118-122 (1952) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058208
  15. Jeon SY, O'Mahony M, Kim KO. A comparison of category and line scales under various experimental protocols. J. Sens. Stud. 19: 49-66 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2004.tb00135.x
  16. Kim KO, O'Mahony M. A new approach to category scales of intensity I: Traditional versus rank rating. J. Sens. Stud. 13: 241-249 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1998.tb00086.x
  17. Koo TY, Kim KO, O'Mahony M. Effects of forgetting on performance on various intensity scaling protocols: Magnitude estimation and labeled magnitude scale (Green scale). J. Sens. Stud. 17: 177-192 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2002.tb00341.x
  18. Lee HJ, Kim KO, O'Mahony M. Effects of forgetting on various protocols for category and line scales of intensity. J. Sens. Stud. 16: 327-342 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00305.x
  19. Lawless HT. Contextual effects in category ratings. J. Test. Eval. 11: 346-349 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE10694J
  20. Lawless HT, Malone GJ. A comparison of rating scales: Sensitivity, replicates, and relative measurement. J. Sens. Stud. 1: 155-174 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1986.tb00168.x
  21. Parducci A. Range-frequency compromise in judgement. Psychol. Monogr. 77: 1-50 (1963)
  22. Parducci A. Category judgement-A range-frequency model. Psychol. Rev. 72: 407-418 (1965) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022602
  23. Pipatsattayanuwong S, Lee HS, Lau S, O'Mahony M. Hedonic Rindex measurement of temperature preferences for drinking black coffee. J. Sens. Stud. 16: 517-536 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00317.x
  24. Green DM, Swets JA. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA. pp. 45-50 (1966)
  25. Brown J. Recognition assessed by rating and ranking. Brit. J. Psychol. 65: 13-22 (1974) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1974.tb02766.x
  26. Lee HS, O'Mahony M. Sensory evaluation and marketing: Measurement of a consumer concept. Food Qual. Prefer. 16: 227- 235 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.04.013
  27. Karahadian C. Impact of global markets on sensory testing programs. Food Technol.-Chicago 49: 77-78 (1995)
  28. Stone H, Sidel JL. Strategic applications for sensory evaluation in a global market. Food Technol.-Chicago 49: 80-89 (1995)
  29. Sobal J. Cultural comparison research designs in food, eating, and nutrition. Food Qual. Prefer. 9: 385-392 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00029-9
  30. Yeh LL, Kim KO, Chompreeda P, Rimkeeree H, Yau NJN, Lundahl DS. Comparison in the use of the 9-point hedonic scale between Americans, Chinese, Koreans, and Thai. Food Qual. Prefer. 9: 413-419 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00028-7
  31. Prescott J, Laing D, Bell G, Yoshida M, Gillmore R, Allen S, Yamazaki K, Ishii R. Hedonic responses to taste solutions: A crosscultural study of Japanese and Australians. Chem. Senses 17: 801-809 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/17.6.801
  32. Yao E, Lim J, Tamaki K, Ishii R, Kim KO, O'Mahony M. Structured and unstructured 9-point hedonic scales: A cross-cultural study with American, Japanese, and Korean consumers. J. Sens. Stud. 18: 115-139 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2003.tb00379.x
  33. Stone H, Sidel JL. Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press, San Francisco, CA, USA. pp. 246-251 (1992)
  34. Lawless HT, Heymann H. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, USA. pp. 431- 449 (1998)
  35. Resurreccion AVA. Consumer Sensory Testing for Product Development. Aspen Publ., Gaithersburg, MD, USA. pp. 10-20 (1998)
  36. Alfaro-Rodriguez H, Angulo O, O'Mahony M. Be your own placebo: A double paired preference test approach for establishing expected frequencies. Food Qual. Prefer. 18: 353-361 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.02.009
  37. Angulo O, O'Mahony M. The paired preference test and the 'No Preference' option; was Odesky correct? Food Qual. Prefer. 16: 425-434 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.08.002
  38. Marchisano C, Lim J, Cho HS, Suh DS, Jeon SY, Kim KO, O'Mahony M. Consumers report preference when they should not: A cross-cultural study. J. Sens. Stud. 18: 487-516 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2003.tb00402.x
  39. Odesky SH. Handling the neutral vote in paired comparison product testing. J. Marketing Res. 4: 199-201 (1967) https://doi.org/10.2307/3149367
  40. Alfaro-Rodriguez H, O'Mahony M, Angulo O. Paired preference tests: d' Values from Mexican consumers with various response options. J. Sens. Stud. 20: 275-281 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2005.00018.x
  41. Falk SN, Henrickson RL, Morrison RD. Effect of boning beef carcasses prior to chilling on meat tenderness. J. Food Sci. 40: 1075-1079 (1975) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1975.tb02271.x
  42. Gridgeman NT. Pair comparison, with and without ties. Biometrics 15: 382-388 (1959) https://doi.org/10.2307/2527742
  43. Chapman KW, Lawless HT. Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. J. Sens. Stud. 20: 454-468 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2005.00039.x
  44. Greenberg A, Collins S. Paired comparison taste tests: Some food for thought. J. Marketing Res. 3: 76-80 (1966) https://doi.org/10.2307/3149438
  45. Wilke KD, Cochrane C-YC, Chambers IV E. Multiple preference tests can provide more information on consumer preferences. J. Sens. Stud. 21: 612-625 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2006.00086.x
  46. Baker GA, Amerine MA, Roessler EB, Filipello F. The nonspecificity of differences in taste testing for preference. Food Res. 25: 810-816 (1960) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1960.tb00030.x
  47. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD. Detection Theory: A User's Guide. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA. pp. 7-16 (2005)
  48. Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34: 273-286 (1927) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288
  49. Thurstone LL. Psychophysical analysis. Am. J. Psychol. 38: 368-389 (1927) https://doi.org/10.2307/1415006
  50. Ennis DM. A common framework for interpreting similarity, liking, and preference data (abstract no. CS3.2). In: Abstracts: 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. August 12-16, Hyatt Regency, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Elsevier, Oxford, UK (2007)
  51. Chapman KW, Grace-Martin K, Lawless HT. Expectations and stability of preference choice. J. Sens. Stud. 21: 441-455 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2006.00076.x
  52. Foley M, Williams A, Bade J, Lancaster B, Popper R, Carr BT. Effect of preference-question format with and without sample differences (abstract no. 043). In: Abstracts: 5th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. July 20-24, The Boston Park Plaza Hotel, Boston, MA, USA. Elsevier, Oxford, UK (2003)
  53. Kim HS, Lee HS, O'Mahony M, Kim KO. 'Preference' and 'No Preference' responses when identical pair and non-identical pair was presented in different test protocols. J. Sens. Stud. 22: in press (2007)