Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Acceptance and Preference Testing

  • Chapter
Sensory Evaluation of Food

Part of the book series: Food science text series ((FSTS))

Abstract

Consumer sensory evaluation is usually performed towards the end of the product development or reformulation cycle. At this time, the alternative product prototypes have usually been narrowed down to a manageable subset through the use of analytical sensory tests. Frequently, the sensory testing is followed by additional testing done through market research. The big difference between consumer sensory and marketing research testing is that the sensory test is generally conducted with coded, not branded, products, while market research is most frequently done with branded products (van Trijp and Schifferstein, 1995). Also, in consumer sensory analysis the investigator is interested in whether the consumer likes the product, prefers it over another product, or finds the product acceptable based on its sensory characteristics. The consumer sensory specialist often has no interest in purchase intent, effect of branding, and/or cost factors. Thus, a product will not necessarily be financially successful just because it had high hedonic scores (was well liked) or because it was preferred over another product. Success in the marketplace is also affected by price, market image, packaging, niche, etc. However, a product that does not score well in a consumer acceptance test will probably fail despite great marketing.

About 1930, Dr. Beebe-Center, psychologist at Harvard, wrote a book in which he reported the results of investigations of the pleasantness/unpleasantness of dilute solutions of sucrose and sodium chloride. He called his measurements hedonics. I liked the word, which is both historically accurate and now well installed, and used it in the first official report on the new scale.—David Peryam, “Reflections” (1989)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bahn, K.D. 1989. Cognitive and perceptually based judgments in children’s brand discriminations and preferences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4, 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basker, D. 1988a. Critical values of differences among rank sums for multiple comparisons. Food Technology (Feb. 1988), 79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basker, D. 1988b. Critical values of differences among rank sums for multiple comparisons. Food Technology (July 1988), 88–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bech, A.C., Engelund, E., Juhl, H.J., Kristensen, K., and Poulsen, C.S. 1994. Qfood: Optimal design of food products. MAPP Working Paper 19, Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, K.J., Chambers, E. IV, and Gragi, M.M. 1984. Color codes for paired preference and hedonic testing. Journal of Food Science, 49, 115–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berglund, B., Berglund, U., and Lindvall, T. 1975. Scaling of annoyance in epidemiological studies. In Proceedings: Recent Advances in the Assessments of the Health Effects of Environmental Pollution. Commission of the European Communities, Vol 1., Luxembourg, pp. 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beausire, R.L.W., Norback, J.P., and Maurer, A.J. 1988. Development of an acceptability constraint for a linear programming model in food formulation. Journal of Sensory Studies, 3, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, L.L. 1979. Dimensions of preschool children’s food preferences. Journal of Nutrition Education, 11, 77–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, L.L., Zimmerman, S.I., and Hind, H. 1980. The influence of social-affective context on the formation of children’s food preferences. Child Development, 51, 865–861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, L.L., Birch, D., Marlin, D.W., and Kramer, L. 1982. Effects of instrumental consumption on children’s food preferences. Appetite, 3, 125–143.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, D.A. 1994. Flavour quality as cognitive psychology: the applied science of mental mechanisms relating flavour descriptions to chemical and physical stimulation patterns. Food Quality and Preference, 5, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, D.A. 1995. The cognitive basis of quality. Food Quality and Preference 6, 201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A.V., and Mailer, O. 1982a. Acceptability of water, selected beverages and foods as a function of serving temperature. Journal of Food Science, 47, 1549–1552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A.V., and Mailer, O. 1982b. Relationships between food preference. Journal of Food Science, 47, 1552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caul, J F. 1957. The profile method of flavor analysis. Advances in Food Research, 7, 1–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, A.W., Resurreccion, A.V.A., and Paguio, L.P. 1996. Age appropriate hedonic scales to measure food preferences of young children. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. 1989. The psychophysics of spending. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coetzee, H. 1996. The successful use of adapted paired preference, rating and hedonic methods for the evaluation of acceptability of maize meal produced in Malawi. Abstract, 3rd Sensometrics Meeting, June 19–21, 1996, Nantes, France, pp. 351–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coetzee, H., and Taylor, J.R.N. 1996. The use and adaptation of the paired-comparison method in the sensory evaluation of hamburger-type patties by illiterate/semiliterate consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 7, 81–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daw, E.R. 1997. Relationship betwen consumer and employee responses in research guidance acceptance tests. In A. Munoz, ed. Relating Consumer, Descriptive and Laboratory Data: To Better Understand Consumer Responses. A. Munoz, ed. Manual 30, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 92–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deliza, R., and MacFie, H.J.H. 1996. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: a review. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engen, T. 1974. Method and theory in the study of odor preferences. In A. Turk, J.W. Johnson, Jr., and D.G. Moulton, eds. Human Responses to Environmental Odors. Academic, New York, pp. 121–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engen, T. 1978. The origin of preferences in taste and smell. In J.H.A. Kroeze, ed. Preference Behaviour and Chemoreception. Information Retrieval, London, pp. 263–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engen, T., Lipsitt, L.P., and Peck, M. 1974. Ability of newborn infants to discriminate sapid substances. Developmental Psychology, 10, 741–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gacula, M.C., and Singh, J. 1984. Statistical Methods in Food and Consumer Research. Academic, Orlando, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, R, and Stauffer, L. 1991. Product optimization in central location testing and subsequent validation and calibration in home-use testing. Journal of Sensory Studies, 5, 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhoff, K., and MacFie, H.J.H. 1994. Preference mapping in practice. In H.J.H. MacFie and D.M.H. Thomson, eds. Measurement of Food Preferences. Blackie Academics, London, pp. 137–166.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Head, M.K., Giesbrecht, F.G., and Johnson, G.N. 1977. Food acceptability research: comparative utility of three types of data from school children. Journal of Food Science, 42, 246–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgensen, H., Solheim, R., and Naes, T. 1997. Consumer preference mapping of dry fermented lamb sausages. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough, G., Bratchell, N., and Wakeling, I. 1992. Consumer preference of Dulce de Leche among students in the United Kingdom. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jack, ER, Piggott, J.R., and Paterson, A. 1994. Use and appropriateness in cheese choice, and an evaluation of atrributes influencing apprpriateness. Food Quality and Preference, 5, 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jellinek, G. 1964. Introduction to and critical review of modern methods of sensory analysis (odour, taste and flavour evaluation) with special emphasis on descriptive sensory analysis (flavour profile method). Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics, 1, 219–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jellinek, J.S. 1975. The Use of Fragrance in Consumer Products. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.R., and Vickers, Z. 1987. Avoiding the centering bias or range effect when determining an optimum level of sweetness in lemonade. Journal of Sensory Studies, 2, 283–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.R., and Vickers, Z. 1988. A hedonic price index for chocolate chip cookies. In D.M.H. Thomson, ed. Food Acceptability. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 135–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L.V., Peryam, D.R., and Thurstone, L.L. 1955. Development of a scale for measuring soldiers’ food preferences. Food Research, 20, 512–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahkonen, P., Tuorila, H., and Hyvonen, L. 1995. Dairy fact content and serving temperature as determinants of sensory and hedonic characteristics of cheese soup. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 127–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, S.A., Sigman-Grant, M., and Guinard, J.-X. 1994. Sensory testing with young children. Food Technology, 48(3), 92–94, 96–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, B.J. 1990. Evaluating rating scales for sensory testing with children. Food Technology, 44 (11), 78–80, 82, 84, 86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagrange, V., and Norback, J.P. 1987. Product optimization and the acceptor set size. Journal of Sensory Studies, 2, 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahteenmaki, L., and Tuorila, H. 1997. Item by use appropriateness of drinks varying in sweetener and fat content. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H.T. 1977. The pleasantness of mixtures in taste and olfaction. Sensory Processes, 1, 227–237.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H.T. 1994. Contextual and measurement aspects of acceptability. Final Report #TCN 94178, U.S. Army Research Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H.T., Hammer, L.D., and Corina, M.D. 1982–83. Aversions to bitterness and accidental poisonings among preschool children. Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology, 19, 951–964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, F., and Bellisle, E 1987. The measurement of food preferences in humans: do taste and spit tests predict consumption? Physiology and Behavior, 39, 739–743.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McBride, R.L. 1982. Range bias in sensory evaluation. Journal of Food Technology, 17, 405–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBride, R.L. 1990. The Bliss Point Factor. Macmillan (Australia), South Melbourne, NSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, B.J. 1990. Identifying consumers and consumer test subjects. Food Technology, 44 (11), 154–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwan, J. 1996. Preference mapping for product optimization. In Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 71–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meilgaard, M., Civille, G.V., and Carr, B.T. 1991. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 2d ed. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, H.R. 1983. Product Testing and Sensory Evaluation of Foods: Marketing and RandD Approaches. Food and Nutrition Press, Westport, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, H.R. 1986. New Directions for Product Testing and Sensory Analysis of Foods. Food and Nutrition Press, Westport, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, H.R. 1980. Psychometric evaluation of food preferences. Journal of Foodservice Systems, 1, 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, H.R., and Krieger, B. 1995. The contribution of sensory liking to overall liking: an analysis of six food categories. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odesky, S.H. 1967. Handling the neutral vote in paired comparison product testing. Journal of Marketing Research, 4, 199–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J.H., Korth, B., and Warren, C.B. 1986. Evaluation of three scaling methods for hedonics. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peryam, D.R., and Pilgrim, F.J. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology (Sep. 1957), 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peryam, D.R. 1989. Reflections. In Sensory Evaluation. In Celebration of Our Beginnings. ASTM Committee E-18 on Sensory Evaluation of Materials and Products, Philadelphia, pp. 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peryam, D.R. and Girardot, N.F. 1952. Advanced taste test method. Food Engineering, 24, 58–61, 194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pokorny, J., and Davidek, J. 1986. Application of hedonic sensory profiles for the characterization of food quality. Die Nahrung, 8, 757–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, E.C. 1989. Bias in Quantjjying Judgments. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Quesenberry, C.P., and Hurst, D.C. 1964. Large sample simultaneous confidence intervals for multinomial proportions. Technometrics, 6, 191–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohm, H., and Raaber, S. 1991. Hedonic spreadability optima of selected edible fats. Journal of Sensory Studies, 6, 81–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffe’ H. 1952. On analysis of variance for paired comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 381–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schifferstein, H.J.N. 1995. Contextual shifts in hedonic judgment. Journal of Sensory Studies, 10, 381–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H.J., and Beauchamp, G.K. 1988. Adult-like odor preference and aversions in three-year-old children. Child Development, 59, 1136–1143.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schraidt, M.F. 1991. Testing with children: getting reliable information from kids. ASTM Standardization News (Mar. 1991 ), 42–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, H.G. 1965. A food action rating scale for measuring food acceptance. Journal of Food Science, 30, 365–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, H.G. 1988. Beyond preference: appropraiteness as a measure of contextual acceptance. In D.M.H. Thomson, ed. Food Acceptability. Elsevier, London, pp. 115–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, R., Farleigh, C.A., and Wharft, S.G. 1991. Effect of quality consumed on measures of liking for salt concentrations in soup. Journal of Sensory Studies, 6, 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidel, J.L., Stone, H., and Bloomquist, J. 1981. Use and misuse of sensory evaluation in research and quality control. Journal of Dairy Science, 64, 2296–2302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidel, J.L., Stone, H., Woolsey, A., and Mecredy, J.M. 1972. Correlation between hedonic ratings and consumption of beer. Journal of Food Science, 37, 335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, H., and Sidel, J.L. 1978. Computing exact probabilities in discrimination tests. Journal of Food Science, 43, 1028–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szczesniak, A.S., and Skinner, E.Z. 1975. Consumer texture profile method. Journal of Food Science, 40, 1253–1256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B.J., Shaffer, S.E., and Shearer, C.M. 1994. Sensory perception of fat in common foods using two scaling methods. Food Quality and Preference, 5, 245–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuorila, H., Hyvonen, L., and Vainio, L. 1994. Pleasantness of cookies, juice and their combinations rated in brief taste tests and following ad libitum consumption. Journal of Sensory Studies, 9, 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Trijp, H.C.M., and Schifferstein, H.J.N. 1995. Sensory analysis in marketing practice: comparison and integration. Journal of Sensory Studies, 10, 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Trijp, H.C.M., Lahtennmaki, L., and Tuorila, H. 1992. Variety seeking in the consumption of spread and cheese. Appetite, 18, 155–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, A. 1988. Sensory specific satiety in lemonade using a just-right scale for sweetness. Journal of Sensory Studies, 3, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, Z., and Mullan, L. 1997. Liking and consumption of fat free and full fat cheese. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 91–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cornell University, USA

    Harry T. Lawless

  2. University of Missouri, USA

    Hildegarde Heymann

Authors
  1. Harry T. Lawless
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hildegarde Heymann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lawless, H.T., Heymann, H. (1999). Acceptance and Preference Testing. In: Sensory Evaluation of Food. Food science text series. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7452-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7452-5_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-6499-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-7452-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation