A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale,an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale

Schutz and Cardello [Schutz, H. G. & Cardello, A. V. (2001). A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 117–159] proposed the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale for measuring food acceptance. The LAM is a line scale anchored at its end points with the phrases “greatest imaginable like” and “greatest imaginable dislike” and uses as intermediate anchors the nine phrases of the traditional hedonic scale. In this study, three hedonic scales were compared, including the widely-used 9-point hedonic scale, the LAM scale, and an 11-point category scale using the LAM’s verbal anchors as category labels. Three groups of consumers (N = about 100 each) used one of the three scales to evaluate the acceptability of highly liked foods (orange juices, potato chips, cookies, and ice cream, with four samples of each). Scales were evaluated primarily on their ability to show differences in acceptability, the correspondence of acceptance ratings to preference ranking and the correspondence of stated product usage (e.g., purchase of pulp vs. non-pulp orange juice) to the product scoring highest. All three scales performed equally well, with no one scale showing a consistent superiority over another. All three scales were able to differentiate acceptability of the orange juices, chips and cookies. No scale differentiated among the ice creams, which had equal and high acceptability. All scales showed a strong correspondence between liking and preference rankings and also between the product rated highest and the type of product usually consumed, within each of the product categories.     

Comparison of the Hedonic General Labeled Magnitude Scale with the Hedonic 9‐Point Scale

The hedonic 9‐point scale was designed to compare palatability among different food items; however, it has also been used occasionally to compare individuals and groups. Such comparisons can be invalid because scale labels (for example, “like extremely”) can denote systematically different hedonic intensities across some groups. Addressing this problem, the hedonic general Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) frames affective experience in terms of the strongest imaginable liking/disliking of any kind, which can yield valid group comparisons of food palatability provided extreme hedonic experiences are unrelated to food. For each scale, 200 panelists rated affect for remembered food products (including favorite and least favorite foods) and sampled foods; they also sampled taste stimuli (quinine, sucrose, NaCl, citric acid) and rated their intensity. Finally, subjects identified experiences representing the endpoints of the hedonic gLMS. Both scales were similar in their ability to detect within‐subject hedonic differences across a range of food experiences, but group comparisons favored the hedonic gLMS. With the 9‐point scale, extreme labels were strongly associated with extremes in food affect. In contrast, gLMS data showed that scale extremes referenced nonfood experiences. Perceived taste intensity significantly influenced differences in food liking/disliking (for example, those experiencing the most intense tastes, called supertasters, showed more extreme liking and disliking for their favorite and least favorite foods). Scales like the hedonic gLMS are suitable for across‐group comparisons of food palatability.     

The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings

In food acceptance tests, it is typical for respondents to rate a product on overall liking and on a series of product attributes. This study was designed to determine if the inclusion of attribute questions can alter a respondent's rating of overall liking. Five groups of respondents evaluated four variations of a dairy dessert. Each group used a different questionnaire, comprised either of (a) overall liking only; (b) overall liking plus intensity scales, which asked respondents to rate the strength of 10 sensory characteristics; (c) overall liking plus attribute liking scales, which asked respondents to rate their liking of appearance, flavor and texture of the products; (d) overall liking plus just-about-right scales, which asked respondents to indicate whether the level of 10 sensory characteristics was “too high”, “too low”, or “just about right”; and (e) overall liking plus attribute liking and just-about-right scales. The inclusion of just-about-right questions on the questionnaire changed the average overall liking ratings of the products, whereas intensity scales had no such effect. Attribute liking questions also tended to alter overall liking ratings, but to a lesser extent than just-about-right questions. Several hypotheses concerning the source of these context effects are discussed.     

A new approach to measuring Overall Liking with the Many-Facet Rasch Model

The 9-point hedonic scale is the most common hedonic rating scale used to provide an assessment of overall liking. Studies have shown that consumer judgements of overall liking could be influenced by their ratings of the liking of flavour, texture, aroma or appearance. However, this is not directly taken into account when using the holistic variable of overall liking. A new approach is proposed for measuring overall liking that is firstly based on initially considering what sensory characteristics (attributes or modalities) defines the latent sensory construct of OVERALL LIKING. The aim of this study was to develop a single measure of Overall Liking that incorporates the relative importance of liking ratings from different sensory characteristics by applying a Many-Facet Rasch model to produce interval-scaled estimates of Overall Liking. A homogeneity test found significant differences (p < 0.01) between the Rasch means estimates of the cured 10 hams that were evaluated by a consumer panel (n = 90), with the two different definitions of the Rasch measure of Overall Liking. No significant differences were found when comparing Rasch measures with raw scores using an intrablock BIB ANOVA and Durbin test. The degree of Relevance, shown on a Many-Facet Wright map, indicated the extent which a variable contributed to the measure of Overall Liking. Of the 10 sensory attributes used for the Individual Attribute Measure, Hardness and Juiciness contributed the most, while Sweetness and Typical Flavour contributed the least. However, the modalities used in rating the Likings of Overall Flavour, Texture, Aroma and Appearance contributed almost to the same extent to Overall Liking in the Total Attribute Measure. The Wright Map also showed that the categories on the 9-point hedonic scale were unequally spaced and the distance between them became increasingly larger the further away from the central category of ‘Neither like nor dislike’.     

The relationship between children’s and mothers’ vegetable liking in Chile,China and the United States

This study analyzed children’s (n = 384), 5 to 12 years old, and their mothers’ (n = 321) vegetable liking in three countries (Chile, China and the USA). Liking measures were collected using tasting sessions in which fourteen different vegetables were tasted. Three factors were tested: country (Chile, China, USA), status (mother/child) and products (vegetables). The results showed that mothers gave higher liking vegetable scores than their children when all the participants were analyzed together (p < 0.05). However, some differences were found between countries when they were analyzed individually. Specifically, American mothers like vegetables more than their children, while Chinese and Chilean mothers like vegetable the same amount as their children. Moreover, it was observed that Chilean mothers liked a smaller variety of vegetables than their children. The use of the 7-point hedonic scale to rate the vegetables was also analyzed. Children in the three countries and Chilean mothers showed a polarized use of the scale (with mostly extreme like and extreme dislike ratings), while mothers in China and the USA showed a pattern of use of the upper part of the scale. Three preference segments were uncovered for children in Chile and China, and two for US children. The variety of the children’s diets, the amount of vegetables eaten at lunch/dinner, and the level of the mothers’ satisfaction with their children’s vegetable intake were factors used to characterize the different child preference segments according to their level of liking (p < 0.05).     

Patterns of sweet liking in sucrose solutions and beverages

While preferred levels of sweetness are known to differ across individuals, investigations of hedonic responses to sweetness across multiple concentrations in both model system and beverage are limited. The objective of this study was to classify people according to their preferred sweetness in sucrose solutions and beverages. The stimuli were water and flavored beverages, each containing five levels of sucrose. A total of 200 female subjects rated liking and intensity of sweetness for sucrose solutions, and they conducted paired preference tests using the Monell forced-choice, paired-comparison, tracking procedure. These tests were replicated for the beverage. These evaluations were conducted on two separate occasions, once while the subjects were hungry and once relatively sated. Hierarchical cluster analysis revealed three distinct clusters based on the hedonic ratings. Cluster 1 showed positive hedonic ratings with increased sucrose concentration in both systems. Cluster 2 showed positive ratings to sucrose increases in the beverage, but not in the sucrose solution. Cluster 3 showed an inverted-U shaped pattern. These patterns were confirmed by the result of the Monell test. Similar trends were observed when the subjects were asked to rate liking of chocolates and in ratings of preferences for commonly consumed sweet and savory food items.     

Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales

In consumer tests, the nine-point hedonic scale has been widely employed for data collection. However, several researchers believe that this scale presents limitations, which decrease its discriminative power. It is thus important to identify alternative scales, presenting better performance than the traditional hedonic scale. This study compared the performance of the “hybrid hedonic scale”, the nine-point hedonic scale, the self-adjusting scale and the ranking scale with respect to: (i) the variability of sensory responses, (ii) discriminating power, (iii) adequacy of the data with ANOVA assumptions and, (iv) ease of use. Eighty consumers evaluated five samples of orange juice using the four above-mentioned scales. Both the scale’s and the sample’s presentation order were balanced among the consumers. Data normality was checked by the Shapiro–Wilks test and homoscedasticity by the Brown–Forsythe test. The discriminating power of the scales was analyzed by p_sample, the REGWF test and Power Analysis. The ranking test results were evaluated by Friedman’s test and the ease of use by the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test. The results evidenced the superiority of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the structured and self-adjusting scales both with respect to the discriminating power and the ANOVA assumptions. The structured and hybrid hedonic scales were considered to be significantly easier to use than the self-adjusting scale.     

THE OVERCOOKED AND UNDERDONE: MASCULINITIES IN JAPANESE FOOD PROGRAMMING

This paper explores the representation of masculinity in Japanese television cooking shows. It does this for a number of reasons: first, because television is the most consumed medium in Japan today, present in every household and viewed, on average, 3.5 hours a day; second, because food is present on nearly every channel, in some form, on and in between virtually every program, all day, every day; third, because gender representations, especially masculinity, are a major component of these communications; fourth, because the version of masculinity that is communicated is a very narrowly constructed, univocal type. Following Ito (1996), this type is shown to be “masculine hegemony,” a construct with three essential elements: authority, power, and possession. Working through an array of on-screen data, I show that, regardless of the “kind” of male present in food shows, men invariably embody one or all of these masculine characteristics. Importantly, women also reinforce these qualities, either by facilitating manifestation or adopting these traits themselves. Few, if any, deviations from these depictions can be located, and when they are, they can be explained in terms of the corporate structure of television in contemporary Japan. A key observation is that, despite the prevalence of hegemonic masculinity, it is not played out through the iconic Japanese male, the salaried worker. In fact, in contrast with the pervading socio-economic reality in the “real world,” this male archetype is wholly absent inside the food-show screen.     

Regional variation in the hedonic evaluation of lamb meat from diverse production systems by consumers in six European countries

This paper describes the responses of consumers in six European countries (Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Iceland and United Kingdom) tasting meat from twelve different local types of lambs produced in those same six countries. Animals represented 10 breeds and crossbreeds, three sexes, several diets composed of either milk, concentrates and various forages as main ingredients and different slaughter ages, from 1 and 12 months, and carcass weights, from 5.5 to 30.4 kg. Tests were conducted by 36 volunteer families in each of the six countries involved in the study. Families were asked to roast the joints using their own cooking criteria, evaluating (from “dislike extremely” to “like extremely”) flavour, tenderness, juiciness and overall liking. Also the cook was asked to rate the odour during cooking. Country and lamb type and their interaction were statistically significant for all the variables analysed. Results suggest a link between the assessments of a given lamb type and the consumers’ culinary background, showing clear associations between country and lamb type preferences. It was possible to separate, independently of the country, different groups of families with similar preferences. Five family groups, which included 88 families (40.74%), had a clear Mediterranean origin and preferred types of lamb fed either milk or mainly concentrate diets. Seven family groups, which included 93 families (43.06%) with a clear northern origin, preferred types reared on grass or with grass included in the diet. The rest of the groups (four) that included 35 families (16.20%) had no clear composition (northern or Mediterranean), and they had a wider taste preference. It can clearly be seen that there are two categories of consumers of lamb in the analysed European market: those who prefer “milk or concentrate taste” and those who prefer “grass taste”.     

Effect of pig sex on consumer ratings for pork chops and bacon

The study was conducted to determine whether consumer acceptability of fresh and cured pork differed among gilt, intersex, cryptorchid, and intact male market pigs. Samples of chops and bacon from 12 animals of each sex were tested using 9-point hedonic scales for sensory characteristics. Androst-16-ene steroid levels, blood levels of testosterone and estrogen were determined, as was ‘taint’ by a fry test of fat. A significant sex effect for tenderness (P < 0·0092) and juiciness (P < 0·0095) resulted from chops of intact males being liked least. Low consumer ratings were usually texture related. Cryptorchid pigs varied most in eating characteristics being the only sex to exhibit significant differences for liking of aroma and flavour of chops. The few significant differences obtained for bacon were not related to those obtained for chops. Fry test and steroid levels were not related to liking with the exception of testosterone which reduced mean liking.     

The 9-point hedonic scale: Are words and numbers compatible?

The original 9-point scale, developed by the U.S. army for menu planning for their canteens, consisted of a series of nine verbal categories representing degrees of liking from ‘dislike extremely’ to ‘like extremely’. For subsequent quantitative and statistical analysis, the verbal categories are generally converted to numerical values: ‘like extremely’ as ‘9’, ‘dislike extremely’ as ‘1’. Yet, sometimes what is termed a 9-point hedonic scale is an unstructured numerical scale, labeled at the ends with ‘dislike extremely’ and ‘like extremely’. The former scale requires consumers to categorize foods according to how much they are liked or not; the latter requires the consumers to differentiate numerically between the foods in terms of the relative degree of liking for each. Foods that were placed in the same verbal category for the former scale might be given different numerical scores on the second scale. To illustrate this, consumers rated five chocolates, in a series of experiments, on these two types of 9-point scale (verbal categories only vs numbers only) and the proportion responding differently to the two scales ranged from 100% to 79%. This indicated that numerical data obtained from both types of 9-point scale were not interchangeable. It also suggested that consumers were using different cognitive strategies for verbal categories and numbers. To check that the difference was not caused by the fact that the verbal categories were bipolar and the numbers unipolar, the experiment was repeated using a bipolar number scale (–4 through 0 to +4). The same results were obtained. For comparison, a 9-point hedonic scale including both verbal categories and numbers together, was also used. The results for this scale showed a greater similarity to the version of the 9-point scale consisting only of verbal categories than the unstructured numerical version. Stimulus equalizing bias was used as a tool to make a preliminary investigation into the cognitive strategies involved for the two versions of the scale. The hypothesized relative strategy was confirmed for the unstructured numerical scale but the hypothesized absolute strategy was not confirmed for the scale using only verbal categories; the strategy appeared to have relative elements. Regardless of the precise nature of the cognitive strategies used for two versions of the scale, they do not give the same results and data obtained from each version should be compared with caution.     

Effect of Reference Foods in Repeated Acceptability Tests: Testing Familiar and Novel Foods Using 2 Acceptability Scales

ABSTRACT:  Hedonic tests are routinely used to assess the acceptance of food products. However, these single tests may not be the best approach for predicting long-term use. The objectives of this study were, first, to check whether a difference from reference score is more sensitive to changes in hedonic scores, second, to assess whether the labeled affective scale (LAM) is more sensitive to differences than the 9-point scale, and third, to assess the effect of repeated exposure on the hedonic scores of neophilic and neophobic panelists for familiar and novel foods. Two groups of 41 panelists were tested with either the 9-point hedonic scale or LAM scale. Panelists received a food neophobia questionnaire and were subsequently classified to neophobic, neophilic, or neutral. Ten foods, including 5 novel and 5 familiar, were used. In each session, 5 to 6 foods were served twice/week for 4 wk. Serving frequency ranged between 1 and 8 times (1, 2, 4, 6, 8). Data analyses were performed 3 times, using either absolute acceptability scores or relative scores, that is, the difference between absolute scores and scores for either the reference (cracker, RELFAM) or a novel food (pickled-ginger, RELNOV) served in every session. The 3 analyses (absolute, RELFAM, and RELNOV) generated similar results with respect to the number of significant differences between foods. There was no major drift in acceptability scores with sessions. A significant food effect was obtained ( P < 0.05) and a significant food × neophobia ( P < 0.05) was noted for 2 novel foods, pickled ginger, and lychee, whereby neophobic panelists were less accepting of them. Both scales were equally sensitive with some advantages for LAM over the 9-point hedonic scale.     

Does Information about Sugar Source Influence Consumer Liking of Products Made with Beet and Cane Sugars?

Beet sugar contains an off‐aroma, which was hypothesized to generate expectations on the acceptability of a product made with beet sugar. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess the impact of information about the sugar source (beet vs. cane) on the overall liking of an orange‐flavored beverage. One hundred panelists evaluated an orange‐flavored powdered beverage mix and beverage made with beet and cane sugars using a 5‐phase testing protocol involving a tetrad test and hedonic ratings performed under blind and informed conditions. Tetrad test results indicated that there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) between the beverage mix made with beet sugar and cane sugar; however, no difference was found between the beverage made with beet sugar and cane sugar. Hedonic ratings revealed the significance of information conditions on the panelists evaluation of sugar (F = 24.67, P < 0.001); however, no difference in the liking was identified for the beverage mix or beverage. Average hedonic scores were higher under informed condition compared to blind condition for all products, possibly because labels tend to reduce uncertainty about a product. Results from this study are representative of the responses from the general population and suggest that they are not affected by sugar source information in a beverage product. Based on concerns with the use of beet sugar expressed in the popular press, there may be a subgroup of the population that has a preconceived bias about sugar sources due to their prior experiences and knowledge and, thus, would be influenced by labels indicating the sugar source used in a product.     

A tale of 3 scales: How do the 9-pt,Labeled Affective Magnitude,and unstructured Visual Analog scales differentiate real product sets of fresh berries?

Selection of scales for measuring liking remains an active area of discussion in sensory science, but there is still no real consensus on which scale a sensory scientist working in industry should use to measure actual hedonic responses to food products. Key criteria for a hedonic scale are whether it sensitively and efficiently discriminates among consumer responses to products. Therefore, the key question this study investigates is whether the use of different scales by the same subjects on the same products in a real-world situation would provide different results for the sensory analyst. To address this question, this study comprises the evaluation of 6 for-market varieties each of 4 berries—raspberry, strawberry, blackberry, and blueberry—by the same N = 147 untrained subjects using 3 popular scales—the 9-pt hedonic scale, the Labeled Affective Magnitude Scale (LAM), and the unstructured Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Data were analyzed by mixed-effects ANOVA with subsequent scale-performance and post-hoc measures, and by bootstrapping simulation studies to estimate the empirical power of each scale to detect differences. For each berry type, significant differences in liking were detected by at least one scale, but scale performance differed. The 9-pt scale was the only one of the three to detect differences among the blueberry samples, and examination of ANOVA and post-hoc results for all berries showed that the 9-pt scale consistently discriminated among samples as well or better than the other two scales. In simulation studies, the 9-pt scale showed reliable detection of differences at sample sizes smaller or equal to the other two scales. It is apparent that—in terms of real-world applications and expected detection of differences—the 9-pt scale discriminates consumer liking for different products as well or better than two continuous scales and can be retained in industry research programs.     

Data from ‘words only’ and ‘numbers only’ 9-point hedonic scales are not interchangeable for serial monadic as well as rank-rating protocols: Aspects of memory and culture

American, Chinese, Thai and Mexican consumers were required to assess products on two types of 9-point hedonic scale. One type, the ‘words only’ scale, consisted of the traditional verbal labels to which the numbers 1–9 are later attributed for numerical analysis. The second type, the ‘numbers only’ scale was a numerical scale ranging 1–9, along with the appropriate information indicating the directions of liking vs disliking. For the same stimuli, consumers used the ‘words only’ and ‘numbers only’ scales differently, indicating that the data from the two scales were not directly comparable. This was found for both the rank-rating and serial monadic protocols. With the latter protocol, consumers sometimes gave responses on the 9-point hedonic scale that were inconsistent with their rankings of liking. There was a strong tendency for the mean range of responses for the ‘words only’ scale to be less than for the ‘numbers only’ scale.     

Presentation methods for unidirectional scales to measure consumers’ liking and disliking percepts

Consumers demonstrated bivariate conceptualization, which resulted in an independent relationship between their liking and disliking ratings using the liking and disliking unidirectional scales (LDUS) from our previous consumer test studies. Although this provided the rationale for the use of the LDUS in consumer tests, the additional time and resources required for separate measurements of liking and disliking may prevent widespread adoption of the LDUS. The objective of this study was to compare the sample discrimination performance and reliability of one-sample measurement using the evaluative space grid (ESG) and consecutive scale presentation (CSP) to the performance of the originally published two-sample measurement scheme using the monadic scale presentation (MSP). Similar distribution fit was found for each sample by Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance with 10,000 simulations across the MSP, ESG and CSP (P > 0.05). Significantly higher liking ratings for 6 out of 10 samples were observed for the ESG compared to the ratings for the MSP and/or CSP. No significant difference was found in either the liking ratings between the MSP and CSP, or in the disliking ratings among the MSP, ESG and CSP. The subjects were more consistent in their disliking ratings across the three scale presentations compared to their liking ratings. Based on the results, the ESG had a similar discrimination performance, but the liking rating was consistently higher than those of the MSP and CSP due to the interaction of liking and disliking measurements. Reliable sample discrimination performance with no significant differences was observed in liking and disliking ratings by the CSP when compared to the MSP. Therefore, measuring consumers’ liking and disliking percepts with one-sample presentation using the CSP is deemed to be a method that is comparable to the two-sample presentation of the MSP.