Browse > Article

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)
Publication Information
Food Science and Biotechnology / v.16, no.6, 2007 , pp. 863-867 More about this Journal
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
marketing; consumer behavior; consumer testing; sensory science; paired preference test;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
Times Cited By Web Of Science : 2  (Related Records In Web of Science)
Times Cited By SCOPUS : 2
연도 인용수 순위
1 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)
2 Kim NS. Discriminant analysis of marketed liquor by a multichannel taste evaluation system. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 14: 554-557 (2005)
3 Chung SJ. Flavor release from ice cream during eating. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 16: 8-17 (2007)   과학기술학회마을
4 Peryam DR, Pilgrim FJ. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technol.-Chicago 11: 9-14 (1957)
5 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)
6 Jones LV, Thurstone LL. The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 39: 31-36 (1955)   DOI
7 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Brown J. Recognition assessed by rating and ranking. Brit. J. Psychol. 65: 13-22 (1974)   DOI
9 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Lawless HT, Heymann H. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, USA. pp. 431- 449 (1998)
11 Resurreccion AVA. Consumer Sensory Testing for Product Development. Aspen Publ., Gaithersburg, MD, USA. pp. 10-20 (1998)
12 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Chapman KW, Grace-Martin K, Lawless HT. Expectations and stability of preference choice. J. Sens. Stud. 21: 441-455 (2006)   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Parducci A. Category judgement-A range-frequency model. Psychol. Rev. 72: 407-418 (1965)   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Lawless HT. Contextual effects in category ratings. J. Test. Eval. 11: 346-349 (1983)   DOI
16 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
17 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)   과학기술학회마을
18 Chapman KW, Lawless HT. Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. J. Sens. Stud. 20: 454-468 (2005)   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Edwards AL. The scaling of stimuli by the method of successive intervals. J. Appl. Psychol. 36: 118-122 (1952)   DOI
20 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)
21 Greenberg A, Collins S. Paired comparison taste tests: Some food for thought. J. Marketing Res. 3: 76-80 (1966)   DOI   ScienceOn
22 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)
23 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Parducci A. Range-frequency compromise in judgement. Psychol. Monogr. 77: 1-50 (1963)
25 Gridgeman NT. Pair comparison, with and without ties. Biometrics 15: 382-388 (1959)   DOI   ScienceOn
26 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)
27 Lee H-S, O'Mahony M. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 13: 841-847 (2004)
28 Jones LV, Peryam DR, Thurstone LL. Development of a scale for measuring soldiers' food preferences. Food Res. 20: 512-520 (1955)   DOI
29 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Angulo O, O'Mahony M. The paired preference test and the 'No Preference' option; was Odesky correct? Food Qual. Prefer. 16: 425-434 (2005)   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34: 273-286 (1927)   DOI
32 Sobal J. Cultural comparison research designs in food, eating, and nutrition. Food Qual. Prefer. 9: 385-392 (1998)   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Odesky SH. Handling the neutral vote in paired comparison product testing. J. Marketing Res. 4: 199-201 (1967)   DOI   ScienceOn
34 Peryam DR, Girardot NF. Advanced taste-test method. Food Eng. 24: 58-61, 194 (1952)
35 Stone H, Sidel JL. Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press, San Francisco, CA, USA. pp. 246-251 (1992)
36 Falk SN, Henrickson RL, Morrison RD. Effect of boning beef carcasses prior to chilling on meat tenderness. J. Food Sci. 40: 1075-1079 (1975)   DOI
37 Macmillan NA, Creelman CD. Detection Theory: A User's Guide. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA. pp. 7-16 (2005)
38 Karahadian C. Impact of global markets on sensory testing programs. Food Technol.-Chicago 49: 77-78 (1995)
39 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Green DM, Swets JA. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA. pp. 45-50 (1966)
41 Lawless HT, Malone GJ. A comparison of rating scales: Sensitivity, replicates, and relative measurement. J. Sens. Stud. 1: 155-174 (1986)   DOI
42 Stone H, Sidel JL. Strategic applications for sensory evaluation in a global market. Food Technol.-Chicago 49: 80-89 (1995)
43 Thurstone LL. Psychophysical analysis. Am. J. Psychol. 38: 368-389 (1927)   DOI   ScienceOn
44 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)
45 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
46 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
47 Lee HS, O'Mahony M. Sensory evaluation and marketing: Measurement of a consumer concept. Food Qual. Prefer. 16: 227- 235 (2005)   DOI   ScienceOn
48 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
49 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
50 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)   DOI
51 Baker GA, Amerine MA, Roessler EB, Filipello F. The nonspecificity of differences in taste testing for preference. Food Res. 25: 810-816 (1960)   DOI
52 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)   DOI   ScienceOn
53 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)   DOI   ScienceOn