Measurement of Consumers’ Sensory Discrimination and Preference: Efficiency of Preference-difference Test Utilizing the 3-Point Preference Test Precedes the Same-different Test

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In fast moving consumer goods industries, effective and robust sensory discrimination and preference methods need to achieve various business objectives, such as product reformulation. A new preference-difference test was designed in this study as more effective and reliable method. In this method, 3-point paired-preference test was performed before conducting same-different test. The performance of new method was compared with performances of difference-preference test and conventional pairedpreference test. Each of 256 female consumers participated in all three test methods in a counterbalanced order for discriminating two types of strawberry flavored carbonated drinks. McNemar test and Thurstonian modeling/signal detection theory (SDT) were used to compare the effectiveness of same-different tests. SDT analysis and a significance test using the concept of ‘identicality norm’ were applied to compare robustness of preference tests. The results of these analyses indicated that preference-difference test could not only provide better discrimination but also showed more robust preference results.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Christensen RHB, "sensR: An R-package for sensory discrimination. R package version 1.4-0"

2 Köster EP, "The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies" 14 : 359-373, 2003

3 Angulo O, "The paired preference test and the ‘No Preference’ option: Was Odesky correct?" 16 : 425-434, 2005

4 Lee HS, "The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing" 18 : 369-383, 2007

5 Choi YJ, "Superior performance of constant-saltier-reference DTF and DTFM to samedifferent tests by consumers for discriminating products varying sodium contents" 37 : 100-108, 2014

6 Lawless HT, "Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices" Springer 303-324, 2010

7 Moskowitz HR, "Sensory and consumer research in food product design and development" Blackwell Publishing Ltd 229-281, 2012

8 R Core Team, "R: A language and environment for statistical computing" R Foundation for Statistical Computing

9 Rousseau B, "Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: Comparison with triangle and duo-trio methods" 13 : 149-173, 1998

10 Xia Y, "Paired preference tests with reversed hidden demand characteristics" 29 : 149-158, 2014

11 Kim HS, "Paired preference tests using placebo pairs and different response options for chips, orange juices and cookies" 23 : 417-438, 2008

12 Greenberg A, "Paired comparisons in consumer-product tests" 22 : 411-414, 1958

13 Greenberg A, "Paired comparison taste tests: Some food for thought" 3 : 76-80, 1966

14 Christensen RHB, "Ordinal: Regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2013.9-30"

15 Rousseau B, "Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: aspects of irritation, memory and τcriteria" 10 : 173-184, 1999

16 Mojet J, "Investigation into the appreciation of three lowalcohol beers (in Dutch)" Utrecht University: Report Psychological Laboratory (Confidential research report) 1986

17 Prescott J, "Interactions between cognitive processes and hedonic states (abstract no. O.1)" Elsevier 2005

18 Kim MA, "Higher performance of constant-reference duo-trio test incorporating affective reference framing in comparison with triangle test" 32 : 113-125, 2014

19 Prescott J, "Flavour as a psychological construct: Implications for perceiving and measuring the sensory qualities of foods" 10 : 349-356, 1999

20 Frandsen LW, "Feelings as a basis for discrimination: Comparison of a modified authenticity test with the same-different test for slightly different types of milk" 18 : 97-105, 2007

21 Chapman KW, "Expectations and stability of preference choice" 21 : 441-455, 2006

22 Köster EP, "Evaluation Sensorielle, Manuel Méthodologique" Tec & Doc Lavoisier 182-206, 1998

23 Christensen RHB, "Estimation of the Thurstonian model for the 2-AC protocol" 24 : 119-128, 2012

24 Dijksterhuis GB, "Does the mind reflect the mouth? Sensory profiling and the future" 45 : 527-534, 2005

25 Keith NK, "Discrimination tests: Evaluating context effects and respondent reliability using the switchback experimental design" 17 : 115-125, 2009

26 MacMillan NA, "Detection Theory: A User’s Guide" Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc 3-50, 2005

27 Braun V, "Corroborating the 2-AFC and 2-AC Thurstonian models using both a model system and sparkling water" 15 : 501-507, 2004

28 Kim MA, "Consumer contextspecific sensory acceptance tests: Effects of a cognitive warm-up on affective product discrimination" 41 : 163-171, 2015

29 Boutrolle I, "Comparing central location test and home use test results: Application of a new criterion" 16 : 704-713, 2005

30 Chae JE, "Affective same-different discrimination tests for assessing consumer discriminability between milks with subtle differences" 21 : 427-438, 2010

31 Kim MA, "Affective discrimination methodology:Determination and use of a consumer-relevant sensory difference for food quality maintenance" 70 : 47-54, 2015

32 Ennis DM, "Accounting for no difference/preference responses or ties in choice experiments" 23 : 13-17, 2012

33 Ennis JM, "A comparison of three commonly used methods for treating no preference votes" 27 : 123-129, 2012